CTNF 18/562,970 CTNF 86208 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Comments It is noted that claims 1-7 are recited as a “system” which does not clearly set forth which statutory category the invention belongs. It has been determined that the claims are directed to an apparatus and the appropriate principles for interpreting claims for that particular category of invention have been applied. MPEP 2106 I 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transportation means” in claim 10. See PG Pub [0038] notes the transportation means is a truck. “monitoring device” in claims 1-10. See PG Pub [0038] notes this is a control device or any other form of programmable circuitry. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 10 2018 218086 (citing to translation) . Regarding claims 1 and 3-9 , DE teaches a method for operating a fuel cell system #100 with a stack arrangement which comprises multiple fuel cell stacks #102,104,106 (fig. 1, 1 st paragraph of translation under “Description”) that can be selectively activated and/or deactivated by a control unit #112, wherein performance data of each individual fuel cell stack present in the stack arrangement are acquired. DE also discloses that, when a reduced load requirement is detected, the active fuel cell stack that has the greatest degree of degradation is deactivated (see bottom of the “Claims” section at the top of translation). This also ensures that an extended service life of the fuel cell system is achieved on the basis of switching off the fuel cell stack with the greatest degree of degradation or the greatest ageing, as in the present application. Furthermore, each of the fuel cell stacks is combined with at least one further constituent to form a fuel cell subsystem, wherein the performance data of the at least one further constituent are likewise acquired, wherein a subsystem degree of degradation is determined on the basis of all the acquired performance data, and wherein, when an increased load requirement is detected, the fuel cell subsystem that has the lowest subsystem degree of degradation is activated first. Furthermore, DE has the advantage of more uniform ageing of the fuel cell system as a whole, which leads to an extended service life and increased efficiency of the same. The fuel cell subsystem formed by constituents can be assessed for its degree of degradation such that its fuel- cell-subsystem degree of degradation is continuously determined, and the fuel cell subsystems are selectively activated and/or deactivated on the basis of their subsystem degree of degradation. A more uniform aging of the entire fuel cell system can be achieved by deactivating the active fuel cell stack, which has the highest degree of degradation (reads on claim 5 – operational performance), when a reduced load requirement is detected. This also ensures that an extended service life of the fuel cell system is achieved due to the switching off of the fuel cell stack provided with the greatest degree of degradation or the greatest aging . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2018 218086 (citing to translation) in view of Wilson et al. (US 20110171547) Regarding claims 2 and 10 , DE does not specifically teach the use of the device in a vehicle (claim 10) or the recited voltages (claim 2). It is noted that claim 2 relates to the use of the device. However, Wilson also teaches a plurality of fuel cells with a controller used in a vehicle (abstract) and maintained at level so that at a power dissipation level which has been selected, the current in the auxiliary load will be that which relates to the current density on the performance curve (FIG. 2) at which the voltage is below the critical voltage, by some margin (such as a few hundreds of a volt). In a typical case, 850 millivolts is a likely critical voltage. Thus, the controller may be configured to cause the voltage, during low power demand, to remain within a small range of voltages, such as between 830 millivolts and 890 millivolts. This provides the desired low power output at the same time as assuring that the critical voltage will not be exceeded [0019]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the invention to have selected an operating range of 600-900 millivolts for DE as taught by Wilson to operate in a vehicle to ensure the desired low power output at the same time as assuring that the critical voltage will not be exceeded. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05 II B . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20070125647 teaches a fuel cell stack for a truck with a controller that controls the stacks in the range of about 150 mV (millivolts) to about 800 mV [0109]; US20090197129 teaches a fuel cell stack with a controller that operates the stacks to prevent deterioration [0073-76]; US20250279666 – fuel cell control system; US20180097354 teaches a fuel cell stack with a controller [0113] that operates the cells at predetermined amounts; and US20190393526 teaches a fuel cell stack with a controller that operates the cells at predetermined ranges [0034-36]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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. /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/562,970 Page 2 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/562,970 Page 3 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/562,970 Page 4 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/562,970 Page 5 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/562,970 Page 6 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/562,970 Page 7 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/562,970 Page 8 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/562,970 Page 9 Art Unit: 1776
Prosecution Insights