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 July 16, 2024, has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022200627.5, filed on January 20, 2022.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on July 16, 2024, have been considered and accepted by the examiner.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 6 and 7 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.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7 the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05 (d).
Examples of this are “preferably stored in the control device” in claim 6 and “preferably each time the fuel cell system” in claim 7. In Claim 6, it is unclear in the claims whether the voltage data can be stored only in the control device or can be stored in an external device. In claim 7, it is unclear in the claims whether the detection of leakage is carried out every time the fuel cell system is started, or the detection can be carried out in alternate cycles.
For the purpose of this art rejection below, the claims have been interpreted such that the voltage data is stored only in the control device and that the detection of leakage is carried out every time the fuel cell system is started.
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.
(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, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being clearly anticipated by Kawahara et al., (JP2012123914A) using applicant provided IDS citation and attached translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Kawahara teaches:
A method for operating a fuel cell system (1) [(0001)] comprising:
a fuel cell stack (2) [(0011)]
Having a cathode (3) and an anode (4) wherein air is supplied to the cathode (3) via a supply air path (5), and exhaust air exiting the fuel cell stack (2) is discharged via an exhaust air path (6), and wherein the anode (4) is supplied with hydrogen via an anode circuit (7) ([0019]- “fuel gas (hydrogen) supplied to the anode-side catalyst electrode layer, which is provided with an electrolyte membrane in between , and oxidizing gas supplied to the cathode-side catalyst electrode layer” and [0022] [0023], Fig. 1- “oxidizing gas via an air intake 310, and oxidizing gas supply channel 351a and exhaust port 390 for oxidizing gas discharge channel 351e”).
Wherein
When the fuel cell system (1) is switched off, the cathode (3) is shut off and the oxygen concentration of the air in the cathode (3) is minimized and when the system is subsequently restarted and the cathode (3) remains shut off, the following steps are then carried out ([0045], Fig.1- “the fuel cell system 10 is shut down, the inflow of air from the sealing valve 340 to the cathode is suppressed. Therefore, the movement of oxygen from the cathode to the anode is also suppressed”).
The anode (4) is flushed with hydrogen and b) at least one cell voltage and/or the total voltage of the fuel cell stack (2) is or are measured and used to detect a leakage point ([0072], Fig.1 - “fuel cell system 10 can be implemented as a system that determines whether or not a hydrogen DEFICIENCY has occurred in the anode using the voltage change of the cell voltage (dVocv/dt) during STARTUP” and “abnormality of the sealing valve 340 is determined using the voltage change of the cell voltage during startup”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kawahara teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
Wherein the voltage distribution across the individual fuel cells of the fuel cell stack (2) is used to detect and locate a leakage point ([0011]- “the voltage detection unit detects the cell voltage generated between the anode side and the cathode side of each fuel cell, and the abnormality detection unit determines that an abnormality has occurred in the gas supply suppression unit”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kawahara teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
Wherein at least one cell voltage and/or the total voltage is or are monitored with the aid of a control device ([0007]- “abnormality detection unit detects a state in which the increase in the voltage per unit time”).
Wherein at least one time-dependent voltage distribution is preferably stored in the control device ([0073]- “abnormality detection unit may be configured to determine if a valve is faulty based on whether the cell voltage exceeds a threshold”).
Which voltage distribution is characteristic of a specific valve (8, 9) when the latter is leaking ([0007]- “abnormality detection unit to determine an abnormality has occurred in the gas supply suppression unit”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kawahara teaches:
A control device configured to perform steps of a method according to claim 1 ([0028], Fig. 1- “the system controller 900 is electrically connected to each component of the fuel cell system 10 and controls the operation of each component”).
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 (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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (JP2012123914).
Regarding Claim 2, Kawahara teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 2 depends upon. Kawahara further teaches that if a condition is detected in which the increase in voltage generated in the fuel cell per unit time becomes negative, it is determined that there is an abnormality in the gas supply suppression unit ([0007]).
Kawahara does not specifically teach:
wherein, the size of a detected leakage point is estimated based on the at least one measured cell voltage and/or the total voltage.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Kawahara to create a system that tells us the size of the leak based on the differential between the preset value of the cell voltage and the actual reading during a leakage. See MPEP § 2143.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 7, Kawahara teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 7 depends upon. However, Kawahara does not specifically teach:
Wherein the method steps a) and b) for detecting a leakage are carried out repeatedly, preferably each time the fuel cell system is started after a switch-off phase lasting several hours, and at least one measured cell voltage and/or total voltage is or are stored.
However, Kawahara teaches the “abnormality detection unit that detects cell voltage of the fuel cells during the startup of the fuel cell” [0011] and “abnormality detection unit may be configured to determine whether the sealing valve 340 is faulty based on whether the cell voltage Vocv exceeds a threshold” [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Kawahara to run the fuel cell system using a switch off phase lasting several hours for leakage detection and repeatedly test for leakage since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143.
The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment only routine skill is involved. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (JP2012123914) in view of Kato (JP2010080166).
Regarding Claim 3, Kawahara teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends upon- the detection of leakage point based on the measured cell voltage ([0011]). However, Kawahara is silent upon:
Wherein the duration of the preceding switch-off phase and/or the temperature in the fuel cell stack (2) at the beginning of the switch-off phase is or are considered when estimating the size of a detected leakage point.
However, Kato in a similar field of endeavor that focuses on fuel cell system and the method for detecting abnormalities thereof, teaches:
“When suppression state is formed, when the hydrogen capacity in the anode system flow path AR is relative large, and the voltage change is relatively small after the voltage of the fuel cell 100 enters a low voltage state, it can be estimated that the fuel cell 100 is functioning normally and that the suppression unit Q is functioning normally” [0088] and,
“If the hydrogen capacity in the anode flow path AR is relatively large, and the voltage of the fuel cell 100 is malfunctioning, it can be inferred that the fuel cell 100 is malfunctioning and there is a malfunction in the suppression unit Q” [0089].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kawahara by measuring the voltage to detect a leak and Kato to have a preset value of a normal suppression unit to check for malfunction in the suppression unit to have a device that estimates the size of leakage point based on the duration of preceding switch-off phase and/ or temperature in the fuel stack since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.
Regarding Claim 5, Kawahara teaches the limitations of claim 4, which claim 5 depends upon- the detection of leakage point based on the measured cell voltage ([0011]). However, Kawahara is silent upon:
Wherein the duration of the preceding switch-off phase and/or the temperature in the fuel cell stack (2) at the beginning of the switch-off phase is or are considered when locating a leakage point.
However, Kato in a similar field of endeavor that focuses on fuel cell system and the method for detecting abnormalities thereof, teaches:
“When suppression state is formed, when the hydrogen capacity in the anode system flow path AR is relative large, and the voltage change is relatively small after the voltage of the fuel cell 100 enters a low voltage state, it can be estimated that the fuel cell 100 is functioning normally and the suppression unit Q is functioning normally” ([0088]) and,
“If the hydrogen capacity in the anode flow path AR is relatively large, and the voltage of the fuel cell 100 is malfunctioning, it can be inferred that the fuel cell 100 is malfunctioning and there is a malfunction in the suppression unit Q” [0089].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kawahara by measuring the voltage to detect a leak and Kato to have a preset value of a normal suppression unit to check for malfunction in the suppression unit to have a device that estimates the location of the leakage point based on the duration of preceding switch-off phase and/or temperature in the fuel stack since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAURAV K JHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, Alison L. Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/S.K.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights