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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, and 12-16 recite “the fuel cell stack” and should instead recite “the at least one fuel cell stack” in alignment with lines 1 and 2 of claim 1.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 recite “the high-voltage battery” and should instead recite “the at least one high-voltage battery” in alignment with line 2 of claim 1.
Claims 8 and 17-20 recite “the diode” and should instead recite “the at least one diode” in alignment with lines 5 and 6 of claim 1.
Claims 5, 7, 9-10, 16, and 21 recite “the switch” and should instead recite “the at least one switch” in alignment with line 7 of claim 1.
Claims 5, 7, 9-10, 16, and 21 recite “the fuse” and should instead recite “the at least one fuse” in alignment with line 7 of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “connected to one other via” in line 5 and should instead recite “connected to one another via”.
Claims 3-4, 11, and 17 are objected to for being dependent on an objected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “A device for electrically connecting at least one fuel cell stack and at least one high voltage battery…, wherein the fuel cell stack and the high voltage battery are connected to one another via at least one diode… and at least one switch.” Examiner notes that this phrasing is not considered to require the diode and the switch to be a part of the claimed device and may instead be interpreted as a device being present to connect at least one fuel cell stack and at least one high voltage battery while a separate at least one diode and a separate at least one switch are also present and involved in the connection.
Further, claim 3, as a similar example, among others, recites “the device according to claim 1, wherein an emergency shutdown device is provided for the at least one fuel cell stack.” This, likewise, is not considered to require the emergency shutdown device to be a part of the claimed device and may instead be interpreted as the device of claim 1 being present in tandem with a separate emergency shutdown device.
Claim 10 recites “the switch is closed before the voltage of the fuel cell stack reaches the voltage of the high-voltage battery.” Examiner notes that this may be interpreted as meaning that the switch begins closed and remains closed until the voltage of the fuel cell stack reaches the voltage of the high-voltage battery, at which point the switch opens, or that the switch begins open and is closed in response to the voltage of the fuel cell stack approaching the voltage of the high-voltage battery, but not yet reaching it.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-21 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “closing” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “breaking the connection,” while the accepted meaning is “forming the connection.” For example, Elliott et al. (US 20170229729 A1) teaches a sensor 58 providing an actuation signal to open switch 57 that is positioned between a fuel cell assembly and a battery, therefore preventing current flow from the fuel cell assembly to the battery [0072], and another signal to close switch 57 to turn it back on [0076]. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Further, the pyrotechnic closer is taught to connect poles of the fuel cell in order to short circuit the fuel cell (instant pg. 3, lines 10-13), which indicates that the act of closing is forming the short circuit.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the devices for detecting the voltage of the fuel cell stack and the high voltage battery” in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “the devices for detecting the voltage” are introduced in claim 6, while claim 7 depends on claim 5.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the communication interface” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner anticipates this is meant to recite “the external communication interface” in alignment with line 4 of claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fuel cell system" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “the control of the switch” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “the control of the switch” is introduced in claim 5, while claim 16 depends on claim 6.
Claim 16 recites “the communication interface” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner anticipates this is meant to recite “the external communication interface,” but notes that “the external communication interface” is introduced in claim 5, while claim 16 depends on claim 6.
Claims 11, 12, 17, and 21 are rejected as being dependent on a canceled base claim 2, therefore making them incomplete. See MPEP 608.01(n)V.
Claims 3-6, 9-10, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base 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.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elliott et al. (US 20170229729 A1), hereinafter Elliott.
Regarding claim 1, Elliott teaches an assembly comprising at least one fuel cell stack 51 connected to at least one high-voltage battery 52 for supplying electrical energy to consumers, in this case a load 53, which are connected on the side of the at least one high-voltage battery, as seen in Fig. 5, wherein the at least one fuel cell stack 51 and the at least one high-voltage battery 52 are connected to one other via at least one diode 56 which blocks current flow in the direction of the at least one fuel cell stack [0044] and at least one switch 57 for closing and breaking the connection [0071], and the connection is carried out without a converter, in this case the converter is left out or is replaced with an interconnection controller 40 [0065].
Elliott is silent as to the at least one diode 56 and the at least one switch 57 both being included in a device. However, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to combine the at least one diode 56 and the at least one switch 57 into a single device. The rationale that all the claimed elements, in this case the at least one diode 56 and the at least one switch 57, were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, in this case into a singular device, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art was held to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious in Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969). See MPEP 2143.I.A. Therefore, as long as the electrical system contains the claimed components of the claimed device, the prior art will be considered to read on the claimed device as a whole.
Regarding claim 5, Elliott teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one switch 57 is formed as a cut-off switch that can be switched on or off [0071] without voltage modulation [0022]. This is considered to be equivalent to the switch being a line switch.
Elliott is silent as to a control of the at least one switch being connected to an external communication interface. However, Elliott teaches the at least one fuel cell stack 51 comprising a switch array 21 that may be controlled by a controller 40 that is external to the switch array 21 [0062] (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to also have the controller 40 control the at least one switch 57 or to include a second controller 40 that controls switch 57. The selection of a known material, in this case a controller 40, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case sending reconfiguration signals to a switch, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Elliott teaches a device according to claim 1. Elliott further teaches a method for operating the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one switch is controlled depending on the voltages of the at least one fuel cell stack on the one hand, in this case read by voltage sensor 58 [0071], and the at least one high-voltage battery on the other hand, in this case a threshold voltage based on the battery’s maximum output voltage [0034-0035], as required by claim 9, characterized in that the at least one switch is closed before voltage of the at least one fuel cell stack reaches the voltage of the at least one high-voltage battery, in this case the at least one switch 57 may compare the voltage from sensor 58 against the threshold voltage, which may be a voltage equal to the battery's maximum output voltage [0034], and open the at least one switch when the voltage of the at least one fuel cell stack reaches the voltage of the at least one high-voltage battery [0072], as required by claim 10.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Breu (DE 102018213159 A1), hereinafter Breu.
Elliott teaches the device according to claim 1. Elliott is silent as to providing an emergency shutdown device for the at least one fuel cell stack. However, Breu teaches an electrical energy system comprising at least one fuel cell 11 and at least one HV battery 12 [0010] as well as an emergency shutdown unit 14 that is configured to interrupt the circuit between the fuel cell 11 and the HV battery 12 [0026] and may be integrated into the fuel cell 11 [0028], as required by claim 3. Breu further teaches the emergency shutdown unit 14 being a pyro-separating element [0012] that is activated by a control unit [0015], which is considered to be equivalent to the emergency shutdown device comprising a pyrotechnic closer and being connected to an external communication interface, as required by claim 4.
Elliott and Breu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrical energy systems comprising at least one fuel cell stack and at least one battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elliott to include the pyro-separating element emergency shutdown unit and corresponding control unit taught by Breu. Doing so would have enabled the fuel cell system to be reliably separated from the rest of the HV system in the event of an accident [Breu 0009].
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Oya (US 20180162233 A1), hereinafter Oya.
Elliott teaches the device according to claim 1 and according to claim 5, wherein a device 58 for detecting the voltage of the at least one fuel cell stack 51 is provided, but is silent as to a device being provided for detecting the voltage of the at least one high voltage battery 52, as required by claims 6 and 15. Elliott further teaches the control of the at least one switch being configured to actuate depending on the voltage detected via the device 58 for detecting the voltage of the at least one fuel cell stack 51, but is silent as to the switch being configured to actuate depending also on the voltage detected via a device for detecting the voltage of the at least one high-voltage battery, as required by claims 7 and 16. However, Oya teaches a drive system comprising a fuel cell stack 10, a battery 50, a fuel cell relay circuit 30, a battery relay circuit 60 [0021], and devices 12 and 52 for detecting the voltage of the fuel cell stack 10, Vf, and the battery 50, Vb[0033, 0035], wherein the relay circuits are configured to actuate depending on voltages, Vb and Vf, detected via the devices 12 and 52 for detecting the voltage of the at least one fuel cell stack 10 and the at least one battery 50 [0066].
Elliott and Oya are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrical energy systems comprising at least one fuel cell stack and at least one battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elliott to include a device for detecting the voltage of the at least one high voltage battery 52 and to configure the at least one switch 57 to actuate depending on voltages detected via both devices for detecting the voltage of the at least one fuel cell stack 51 and the at least one high-voltage battery 52. Doing so would have allowed for a higher probability of non-arc discharge realization, leading to more secure prevention of damage to circuit components, and allowed for greater flexibility in responding to problems without stopping the circuit loads [Oya 0066].
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Belschner et al. (US 20030137193 A1), hereinafter Belschner.
Elliott teaches the device according to claim 1 and according to claim 5, wherein the at least one fuel cell stack 51 comprises a proton exchange membrane (PEM) based fuel cell [Elliott 0048] with fuel and air being passed over respective sides of the membrane [Elliott 0002]. Elliott is silent as to the presence of auxiliary units of the fuel cell system. However, Belschner teaches a mobile device containing at least one fuel cell 2, which may be in the form of a PEM cell, at least one hybrid battery 10 [Belschner 0038], and a high-voltage network 3 containing at least one electrical connection secured by at least one fuse, in this case in a fuse housing 34, for electrical drives for auxiliary equipment for starting and for operating the fuel cell [Belschner 0002], such as a compressor drive motor 6 that is provided with air for supplying the fuel cell 2 [Belschner 0039], between the at least one fuel cell 2 and the at least one hybrid battery 10, as seen in Fig. 1.
Elliott and Belschner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrical energy systems comprising at least one PEM fuel cell stack and at least one battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elliott to provide at least one electrical connection between the at least one fuel cell and the at least one battery secured by at least one fuse for auxiliary units of the fuel cell system, wherein consumers, in this case the auxiliary units, are connected via battery connections of the device, as taught by Belschner. Doing so would have allowed the PEM fuel cell, requiring fuel and air [Elliott 0002], to function by providing the necessary components using auxiliary equipment [Belschner 0002], like an air compressor [Belschner 0039], while also providing protection to the outgoers and loads through single pole fuses [Belschner 0022].
Belschner is silent as to the location of the electrical connection, which is between the at least one fuel cell and the at least one battery, in relation to at least one diode. However, someone of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order for the auxiliary equipment to be able to be used for starting the PEM fuel cell [Belschner 0002], it would need to be connected to the circuit in a location where it could receive power from the battery. Placing it between the at least one diode and the at least one fuel cell stack would block the battery current from reaching the connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the at least one electrical connection for auxiliary units of the fuel cell system between the at least one diode 56 and the at least one high voltage battery 52 of Elliott.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Breu further in view of Oya.
Modified Elliott teaches the device according to claim and according to claim 4. Elliott further teaches providing a device 58 for detecting the voltage of the at least one fuel cell stack 51. Elliott is silent as to providing a device for detecting the voltage of the at least one high voltage battery 52. However, Oya teaches a drive system comprising a fuel cell stack 10, a battery 50, and devices 12 and 52 for detecting the voltage of the fuel cell stack 10, and the battery 50 [0033, 0035].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elliott to include a device for detecting the voltage of the at least one high voltage battery 52. Doing so would have allowed for a higher probability of non-arc discharge realization, leading to more secure prevention of damage to circuit components, and allowed for greater flexibility in responding to problems without stopping the circuit loads [Oya 0066].
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Breu further in view of Belschner.
Modified Elliott teaches the device according to claim 3 and according to claim 4. Elliott further teaches the at least one fuel cell stack 51 comprising a proton exchange membrane (PEM) based fuel cell [Elliott 0048] with fuel and air being passed over respective sides of the membrane [Elliott 0002]. Elliott is silent as to the presence of auxiliary units of the fuel cell system. However, Belschner teaches a mobile device containing at least one fuel cell 2, which may be in the form of a PEM cell, at least one hybrid battery 10 [Belschner 0038], and a high-voltage network 3 containing at least one electrical connection secured by at least one fuse, in this case in a fuse housing 34, for electrical drives for auxiliary equipment for starting and for operating the fuel cell [Belschner 0002], such as a compressor drive motor 6 that is provided with air for supplying the fuel cell 2 [Belschner 0039], between the at least one fuel cell 2 and the at least one hybrid battery 10, as seen in Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elliott to provide at least one electrical connection between the at least one fuel cell and the at least one battery secured by at least one fuse for auxiliary units of the fuel cell system, wherein consumers, in this case the auxiliary units, are connected via battery connections of the device, as taught by Belschner. Doing so would have allowed the PEM fuel cell, requiring fuel and air [Elliott 0002], to function by providing the necessary components using auxiliary equipment [Belschner 0002], like an air compressor [Belschner 0039], while also providing protection to the outgoers and loads through single pole fuses [Belschner 0022].
Belschner is silent as to the location of the electrical connection, which is between the at least one fuel cell and the at least one battery, in relation to at least one diode. However, someone of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order for the auxiliary equipment to be able to be used for starting the PEM fuel cell [Belschner 0002], it would need to be connected to the circuit in a location where it could receive power from the battery. Placing it between the at least one diode and the at least one fuel cell stack would block the battery current from reaching the connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the at least one electrical connection for auxiliary units of the fuel cell system between the at least one diode 56 and the at least one high voltage battery 52 of Elliott.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
