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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 March 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-11) recite “A method for detecting a harmful cell voltage of a cell region of a fuel cell stack, the method comprising, determining a noise of a signal of the cell voltage via a cell monitoring process corresponding individually to the fuel cell stack for detecting the harmful cell voltage, and determining a change of the noise with respect to a characteristic noise of the cell voltage as a used signal for a harmful cell voltage.”
Claims 1-11, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “determining a noise of a signal of the cell voltage via a cell monitoring process corresponding individually to the fuel cell stack for detecting the harmful cell voltage, and determining a change of the noise with respect to a characteristic noise of the cell voltage as a used signal for a harmful cell voltage.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “determining a noise of a signal of the cell voltage via a cell monitoring process corresponding individually to the fuel cell stack for detecting the harmful cell voltage, and determining a change of the noise with respect to a characteristic noise of the cell voltage as a used signal for a harmful cell voltage.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical concept, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, they do not introduce a particular machine or technical improvement sufficient to integrate the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 4-7, they do not demonstrate that these particular noise signatures constitute a technical improvement in fuel-cell monitoring.
Regarding claims 8-10, they include the steps of: averaging, sampling, and temporal comparison. Averaging and comparison of successive noise measurements are conventional signal-processing steps. Hence, they do not transform the claims into a practical application.
Regarding claim 11, it introduces the voltage supply, a power supply and microprocessors. These elements are considered generic components.
Regarding claim 12, it is a system and/or apparatus claim that merely recites a method and without additional structural limitations that themselves supply an inventive step.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claims 11 and 12, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-10 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-12 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al (US 11,374,244).
Oh et al disclose the following claimed features:
Regarding claims 1 and 12, a method for detecting a harmful cell voltage of a cell region (Abstract; Figures 1 and 2) of a fuel cell stack (100), the method comprising, determining a noise of a signal of the cell voltage via a cell monitoring process (412) corresponding individually to the fuel cell stack (100) for detecting the harmful cell voltage (column 7, lines 38-45), and determining a change of the noise with respect to a characteristic noise of the cell voltage as a used signal for a harmful cell voltage (column 7, lines 46-53).
Regarding claim 2, wherein, when determining the noise, the cell voltage itself is not determined, or the cell voltage of the at least one cell region is determined via the individual cell monitoring process (Figure 3; column 7, line 38 to column 8, line 35).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: a constant noise of the signal of the cell voltage is an indication of a correct operating state of the cell region, a reduction in the noise of the signal of the cell voltage is an indication of a falling cell voltage, and/or an increase in the noise of the signal of the cell voltage is an indication of an increasing cell voltage (column 6, lines 17-41).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the change in noise: by a significant change in a spread and/or a normal distribution of the noise over the cell voltage, by the occurrence of cell voltages of zero (U=0) or neutral cell voltages (U=0), and/or is detected by a ratio of time components of the cell voltages (U) greater than zero (U>0) or the neutral cell voltage (U>0), and of zero (U=0) or the neutral cell voltage (U>0) (Figures 3 and 4; column 6, lines 17-41; column 8, line 46 to column 9, line 52).
Regarding claim 5, wherein determining of a cell voltage problematic for the cell region or an approximation to a neutral cell voltage of a single cell by (II): a slightly or significantly altered noise, a reduced noise in a range below than in the same range above the signal of the cell voltage, and/or a fully developed characteristic noise is detected in a range above the signal of the cell voltage (Figures 3 and 4; column 6, lines 17-41; column 8, line 46 to column 9, line 52).
Regarding claim 6, wherein determining of a cell voltage which can be harmful to the cell region or of a neutral cell voltage of a single cell in the cell region is carried out by (III): a significantly altered or changed in its nature, no noise in a range below the signal of the cell voltage, and/or a completely pronounced or slightly reduced characteristic noise is detected in a range above the signal of the cell voltage (Figures 3 and 4; column 6, lines 17-41; column 8, line 46 to column 9, line 52).
Regarding claim 7, wherein determining of a cell voltage harmful to the cell region or an inverted cell voltage of a single cell in the cell region is carried out by (IV): a noise that is completely changed in its nature, no noise in a range below the signal of the cell voltage, a slightly or significantly reduced characteristic noise in a range above the signal of the cell voltage, and/or no noise is detected in a range below the signal of the cell voltage (Figures 3 and 4; column 6, lines 17-41; column 8, line 46 to column 9, line 52).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the cell voltage of the cell region is calculated by a ratio of the temporal proportions of positive cell voltages with respect to the simultaneous proportions of neutral cell voltages (column 6, lines 17-41).
Regarding claim 9, wherein a current cell voltage of the at least one cell region is determined by means of the cell monitoring process (412), and a noise of this current cell voltage is determined for detecting the harmful cell voltage, and/or an averaged cell voltage of the at least one cell region is determined by means of the cell monitoring process (412) by means of a sampling frequency in a sampling interval, and a noise of the averaged cell voltage in the sampling interval is determined for detecting the harmful averaged cell voltage (column 7, lines 38-53).
Regarding claim 10, wherein, for detecting the harmful cell voltage, the noise of the current or the averaged cell voltage is compared with at least one noise of a current or averaged cell voltage determined previously in time (column 7, lines 38-53).
Regarding claim 11, wherein: the cell monitoring process (412) has/comprises a voltage supply (200) on one side only, which provides only a positive voltage for measuring the cell voltages, the cell monitoring process (412) does not have/comprehend a power supply (200) which could provide a negative voltage for measuring the cell voltages, and/or a neutral voltage is made available to its microprocessors (column 11, lines 45-60) by the cell monitoring process (412) for measuring the cell voltages.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nomoto (US 10,897,053) discloses an aging device for a fuel cell stack having a plurality of stacked cells, including: a first cell monitor configured to monitor alone the voltage of a predetermined cell on the reactant gas inlet side; a second cell monitor configured to collectively monitor the voltage of a plurality of cells other than the predetermined cell; and a controller configured to set a voltage value acquired by the first cell monitor as the upper limit voltage value, and estimate the generation of a negative voltage in the plurality of individual cells monitored by the second cell monitor from the voltage values acquired by the first cell monitor and the second cell monitor. Won et al (US 10,276,884) disclose a method and system for diagnosing a state of a fuel cell to improve the reliability of diagnosis by calculating a signal to noise ratio.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. 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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights