Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/742,988

POWER SINK CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 13, 2024
Examiner
OH, HARRY Y
Art Unit
3657
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
GM Global Technology Operations LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
584 granted / 684 resolved
+33.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
707
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 684 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The applicant filed an IDS on 6/12/25. It has been annotated and considered. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 11/14/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that an undue burden is not placed on the Examiner if Claims 1-16 and 17-20 are maintained in the same application. This is not found persuasive as stated in the original restriction. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 1-16 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 claim 1 (and similarly 9), the Applicant claims “receiving, at a propulsion controller, power generation”. As the propulsion controller seems to be a microprocessor of sorts, it is not clear how it generates power. It is most likely the Applicant means a command/signal is sent to the propulsion controller to indicate power needs to be generated. 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)(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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20240194912 hereinafter Lee). Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 9), Lee teaches a computer-implemented method when executed by data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, at a propulsion controller, power generation (See at least: Fig. 1 item 300 “controller”); comparing, via the propulsion controller, battery data with a state of charge threshold (See at least: [0056] Meanwhile, when the fuel cell stack 100 enters the stop control mode and a SOC factor of the battery 200 is equal to or higher than a threshold value, the controller 300 may stop the drop of the voltage at the high voltage line 10 and maintain the voltage.); executing, based on the comparison of the battery data, a power sink protocol including at least one mode control via a fuel cell system (See at least: [0056] “stop control mode”); generating, based on the at least one mode control, at least one of a compressor command and a valve command via an air flow system; and regulating, via the at least one generated compressor command and the valve command, an airflow of the airflow system (See at least: [0078] Meanwhile, the controller 300 compares the output voltage of the fuel cell stack 100 to the voltage at the high voltage line 10, and when the output voltage of the fuel cell stack 100 is dropped less than the voltage at the high voltage line 10, the controller 300 controls the air compressor 400 or the air adjustment valve 500 so that the output voltage of the fuel cell stack 100 may be maintained between the voltage upper limit value and the lower limit value in the stop control mode of the fuel cell stack 100.). Regarding claim 2 (and similarly 10), Lee teaches wherein comparing the battery data with the state of charge threshold includes determining a state of charge of the battery data exceeds the state of charge threshold (See at least: [0056] Meanwhile, when the fuel cell stack 100 enters the stop control mode and a SOC factor of the battery 200 is equal to or higher than a threshold value, the controller 300 may stop the drop of the voltage at the high voltage line 10 and maintain the voltage.). Regarding claim 3 (and similarly 11), Lee teaches wherein executing the power sink protocol includes executing a standby mode of the at least one mode control in response to the state of charge exceeding the state of charge threshold (See at least: [0056] Meanwhile, when the fuel cell stack 100 enters the stop control mode and a SOC factor of the battery 200 is equal to or higher than a threshold value, the controller 300 may stop the drop of the voltage at the high voltage line 10 and maintain the voltage.). . Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 12), Lee teaches wherein executing the standby mode includes executing power management of a fuel cell of the fuel cell system (See at least: [0056] Meanwhile, when the fuel cell stack 100 enters the stop control mode and a SOC factor of the battery 200 is equal to or higher than a threshold value, the controller 300 may stop the drop of the voltage at the high voltage line 10 and maintain the voltage.). Regarding claim 5 (and similarly 13), Lee teaches wherein regulating the airflow includes executing the valve command including closing at least one valve to the fuel cell, the at least one valve between a compressor of the airflow system and the fuel cell (See at least: Fig. 1 items 100 “fuel cell stack”, item 400 “air compressor” and item 500 “air adjustment valve”.) Regarding claim 6 (and similarly 14), Lee teaches wherein regulating the airflow includes executing the compressor command including sinking power on a compressor of the airflow system (See at least: [0047] Specifically, when the fuel cell stack 100 enters the stop control mode, the speed of the air compressor 400 is reduced and the air adjustment valve 500 is closed, thereby reducing the flow of air flowing into the fuel cell stack 100, so that the output voltage of the fuel cell stack 100 may be dropped.). Regarding claim 7 (and similarly 15), Lee teaches wherein executing the power sink protocol includes executing a run mode of the at least one mode control (See at least: [0039] FIG. 1 is a schematic view of a fuel cell system according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. Referring to FIG. 1, according to the embodiment of the present disclosure, the fuel cell system includes a fuel cell stack 100 and a battery 200 that are connected to a high voltage line 10 in parallel, a converter 250 connected to the high voltage line 10 and the battery 200 while being located therebetween and configured to control a voltage at the high voltage line 10, and a controller 300.”). Regarding claim 8 (and similarly 16), Lee teaches wherein executing the run mode includes regulating the airflow from a compressor of the airflow system via at least one of an isolation valve and a bypass valve (See at least: Fig. 1 item 500 “air adjustment valve”; [0046] Meanwhile, referring to FIG. 1, the fuel cell system may include an air compressor 400 configured to send air to a cathode of the fuel cell stack 100, and an air adjustment valve 500 configured to adjust the air flowing from the air compressor 400 to the cathode. Furthermore, when the fuel cell stack 100 enters the stop control mode, the controller 300 can control the drop of the output voltage of the fuel cell stack 100 by adjusting the speed of the air compressor 400 or the air adjustment valve 500.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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. /HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 13, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Mar 14, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 31, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 31, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600028
INDUSTRIAL ROBOT COMPRISING AN AXLE DRIVE WITH A COMPACT CONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589503
ROBOT CONTROL APPARATUS, ROBOT CONTROL SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589498
Deployment System for Additive Manufacturing Robot Fleet
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589486
ROBOT AND ROBOT-CONTROLLING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576541
SURFACE FINISH QUALITY EVALUATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 684 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month