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 .
Response to Amendments
Entry of Amendments
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 20 have been amended.
Claim(s) 4 and 13-19 have been canceled.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant’s amendments filed 01/28/2026 with respect to Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference(s) and/or ground(s) being used in the current rejection.
For further details see the rejections/objections for Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 and 20 herein.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 1 and 20 recite a phrase “wherein B represents constant signal shift, A is amplitude of the function ʄ(t), and t is time; wherein ʄ(t) is a logarithmic function.” In last paragraph. Examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite “wherein B represents constant signal shift, A is an amplitude of a logarithmic function f(t), and t is time.” to restore clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phlippoteau et al. (US 20120038452; hereinafter Phlippoteau) in view of Prenninger et al. (US 20150153418).
Regarding claim 1, Phlippoteau teaches in figure(s) 1-8 a method of monitoring the state-of-health of a fuel cell, the method comprising:
providing an external step excitation (step 10; fig. 7) to a fuel cell (para. 2 – fuel cell);
recording the fuel cell response to the external step excitation (step 20, 30);
determining an analytical expression of the recorded response (para. 118 - measured signals, one expresses the voltage as a function of the applied current; para. 28 - Static exploitation of voltage-current curves” regarding a PEM-type fuel cell, the experimental polarization curve Ucellule=f(I), at a constant temperature and pressure, can be compared to the following static four-variable model);
determining loss of electrochemical active surface area (paras. 3-5 - physicochemical changes that take place mainly during the operation of the device … fuel cells of the proton exchange membrane type, the engorgement and drainage phenomena cause substantial deterioration of the cell's performance; para. 28 - α* and I*0 are parameters relative to the activation over-voltages, Rmem is the electrical resistance of the cell due primarily to the ohmic losses in the membrane, and Rdiff, 0 is a resistance related to losses by diffusion, and in particular to diffusion over-voltages – implies loss of active surface area) by comparing at least one parameter (SOH comparison step 50; para. 29 - calculates a deviation by comparing the estimated value of one or more parameters of the static model to a predetermined reference value of the same parameter(s), said deviation characterizing the state of health of the cell) of the analytical expression to a beginning of life (BoL) value of said parameter (para. 8 - a deviation between the estimated or measured value of at least one physicochemical parameter at least partially modeling the physicochemical behavior of the electrochemical device, and a predetermined reference value of the same parameter. This deviation translates the operational nature of the device both in the long term (remaining lifetime) and short term (appearance of physical phenomena that abruptly decrease the performance). Of course, it may involve a relative or absolute deviation; para. 71 - measuring a deviation between said determined state of health and a reference state of health – remaining lifetime implies in reference to EOL and BOL SOH).
Phlippoteau does not teach explicitly wherein the analytical expression of the recorded response is R(t) = B + Aʄ(t), wherein B represents constant signal shift, a is amplitude of the function ʄ(t), and t is time; wherein ʄ(t) is a logarithmic function.
However, PRENNINGER teaches in figure(s) 1-10 wherein the analytical expression of the recorded response is R(t) = B + Aʄ(t), wherein B represents constant signal shift, a is amplitude of the function ʄ(t), and t is time; wherein ʄ(t) is a logarithmic function (para. 47 – THDA response eqn. 1 with logarithmic function f; figs. 1-3,10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Phlippoteau by having wherein the analytical expression of the recorded response is R(t) = B + Aʄ(t), wherein B represents constant signal shift, A is an amplitude of a logarithmic function f(t), and t is time as taught by PRENNINGER in order to provide applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results of ease of detection as evidenced by "Total Harmonic Distortion Analysis (THDA) offers advantages in this respect, which represents an online diagnostic tool for determining the state of fuel cell stacks. Parameters can be extracted with a relatively low amount of measuring effort, which parameters can be used for the further calculations of the state variables of the fuel cell stack" (para. 10 of PRENNINGER).
Regarding claim 2, Phlippoteau teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the method of claim 1, wherein providing an external step excitation comprises providing a step excitation of current (para. 94 - input signal E(t), here the electrical current, comprises N(1) excitations e(1)(t) and N(2) excitations e(2)(t), N(1) and N(2) are, indifferently of one another, greater than or equal to 1; figs. 3-4) or voltage.
Regarding claim 3, Phlippoteau teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the method of claim 1 wherein recording the fuel cell response comprising recording a current response or a voltage response (para. 18 - voltage in response to these perturbations is measured at the terminals of the cell).
Regarding claim 6, Phlippoteau in view of PRENNINGER teaches the method of claim 1,
PRENNINGER additionally teaches in figure(s) 1-10 wherein H2 is supplied at an anode of the fuel cell and air or O2 is supplied to a cathode of the fuel cell (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Phlippoteau in view of PRENNINGER teaches the method of claim 1,
PRENNINGER additionally teaches in figure(s) 1-10 wherein H2 is supplied at an anode of the fuel cell and air or N2 is supplied to a cathode of the fuel cell (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Phlippoteau teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a diagnostic decision if loss of electrochemical active surface area reaches a predetermined limit value (para. 226 - compares the calculated deviation with a predetermined threshold deviation. When this deviation exceeds the threshold deviation, an instability of the fuel cell is deduced therefrom.)
Regarding claim 11, Phlippoteau teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the method of claim 1, wherein the external excitation is provided while the fuel cell is idle or during operation (para. 3 - physicochemical changes that take place mainly during the operation of the device, but also when the device is stopped).
Regarding claim 12, Phlippoteau teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the method of claim 1, wherein a voltage controller is connected to the fuel cell and configured for providing the external step excitation and recording the fuel cell response (para. 21 - study of the voltage response of the electrochemical device upon application of a current step such as, for example, a current interruption).
Regarding claim 20, Phlippoteau teaches in figure(s) 1-8 a method of monitoring the state-of-health of a fuel cell, the method comprising:
providing an external step excitation (step 10; fig. 7) to a fuel cell (para. 2 – fuel cell);
recording the fuel cell response to the external step excitation (step 20, 30);
determining an analytical expression of the recorded response (para. 118 - measured signals, one expresses the voltage as a function of the applied current; para. 28 - Static exploitation of voltage-current curves” regarding a PEM-type fuel cell, the experimental polarization curve Ucellule=f(I), at a constant temperature and pressure, can be compared to the following static four-variable model); and
determining loss of electrochemical active surface area (paras. 3-5 - physicochemical changes that take place mainly during the operation of the device … fuel cells of the proton exchange membrane type, the engorgement and drainage phenomena cause substantial deterioration of the cell's performance; para. 28 - α* and I*0 are parameters relative to the activation over-voltages, Rmem is the electrical resistance of the cell due primarily to the ohmic losses in the membrane, and Rdiff, 0 is a resistance related to losses by diffusion, and in particular to diffusion over-voltages – implies loss of active surface area) by comparing at least one parameter (SOH comparison step 50; para. 29 - calculates a deviation by comparing the estimated value of one or more parameters of the static model to a predetermined reference value of the same parameter(s), said deviation characterizing the state of health of the cell) of the analytical expression to a beginning of life (BoL) value of said parameter (para. 8 - a deviation between the estimated or measured value of at least one physicochemical parameter at least partially modeling the physicochemical behavior of the electrochemical device, and a predetermined reference value of the same parameter. This deviation translates the operational nature of the device both in the long term (remaining lifetime) and short term (appearance of physical phenomena that abruptly decrease the performance). Of course, it may involve a relative or absolute deviation; para. 71 - measuring a deviation between said determined state of health and a reference state of health – remaining lifetime implies in reference to EOL,BOL).
Phlippoteau does not teach explicitly wherein the analytical expression of the recorded response is R(t) = B + Aʄ(t), wherein B represents constant signal shift, a is amplitude of the function ʄ(t), and t is time; wherein ʄ(t) is a logarithmic function.
However, PRENNINGER teaches in figure(s) 1-10 wherein the analytical expression of the recorded response is R(t) = B + Aʄ(t), wherein B represents constant signal shift, a is amplitude of the function ʄ(t), and t is time; wherein ʄ(t) is a logarithmic function (para. 47 – THDA response eqn. 1 with logarithmic function f; figs. 1-3,10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Phlippoteau by having wherein the analytical expression of the recorded response is R(t) = B + Aʄ(t), wherein B represents constant signal shift, A is an amplitude of a logarithmic function f(t), and t is time as taught by PRENNINGER in order to provide applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results of ease of detection as evidenced by "Total Harmonic Distortion Analysis (THDA) offers advantages in this respect, which represents an online diagnostic tool for determining the state of fuel cell stacks. Parameters can be extracted with a relatively low amount of measuring effort, which parameters can be used for the further calculations of the state variables of the fuel cell stack" (para. 10 of PRENNINGER).
Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phlippoteau in view of PRENNINGER and further in view of ISHII et al. (US 20240369643).
Regarding claim 5, Phlippoteau teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the method of claim 1,
Phlippoteau does not teach explicitly wherein the loss of electrochemical active surface area is determined by comparing At/ABoL.
However, ISHII teaches in figure(s) 1-14 wherein the loss of electrochemical active surface area is determined by comparing At/ABoL(expression 2,5 - current FCC/initial FCC; figs. 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Phlippoteau by having wherein the loss of electrochemical active surface area is determined by comparing At/ABoL as taught by ISHII in order to provide "By performing linear regression on the plurality of SOHs obtained after the reference point, a regression line generation unit generates a deterioration regression line of the secondary battery that follows the reference point. A slope ratio calculation unit calculates a slope ratio between a slope of a tangent line to the deterioration regression curve at the reference point and a slope of the deterioration regression line following the reference point. A sudden deterioration determination unit determines sudden deterioration of the secondary battery on the basis of the slope ratio" (abstract).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phlippoteau in view of PRENNINGER and further in view of Saunders et al. (US 20060070886).
Regarding claim 8, Phlippoteau teaches in figure(s) 1-8 the method of claim 2,
Phlippoteau does not teach explicitly wherein the step excitation of current or voltage comprises applying a cycle of pulsed current or voltage, wherein a pulse in the cycle lasts 1-10 seconds.
However, Saunders teaches in figure(s) 1-6 wherein the step excitation of current or voltage comprises applying a cycle of pulsed current or voltage, wherein a pulse in the cycle lasts 1-10 seconds (1 sec current pulse in figs. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Phlippoteau by having wherein the step excitation of current or voltage comprises applying a cycle of pulsed current or voltage, wherein a pulse in the cycle lasts 1-10 seconds as taught by Saunders in order to provide "determining a waveform of the voltage or the current of the electrical current; representing the waveform by a mathematical description such as a number of points or an analytical function characterized by a number of unknown coefficients and a fixed number of known functions; and thereby determine an optimized waveform of the electrical current to be applied to the electrode of the device. The application of the electrical current is effective to remove a sulfur contaminant from the electrode" (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Phlippoteau in view of Saunders teaches the method of claim 8,
Saunders additionally teaches in figure(s) 1-6 wherein the cycle lasts 30 seconds to 60 seconds, and is applied at least once daily (para. 115 - natural oscillations of voltage may be maintained by providing pulses of the proper frequency and duration to the anode or cathode of the device to excite and maintain the oscillations; fig. 6).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the List of References cited in the US PT0-892.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JUDY NGUYEN can be reached on 571-272-2258. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKM ZAKARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858