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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egawa (JP 2018-160363 A) in view of Kasahara et al (US 2022/0293974).
Regarding claim 1, Egawa teaches a fuel cell system (fig 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising:
a fuel cell (fuel cell 20) configured to generate electric power by an electrochemical reaction between an oxygen-containing gas and a fuel gas (paragraph [0010]), and supply the electric power to a load (paragraph [0014], load);
a fuel container (fuel gas supply source 41) configured to store the fuel gas;
a fuel supply flow path (fuel gas supply channel 42) configured to guide the fuel gas supplied from the fuel container, to the fuel cell (fig 1);
a plurality of injectors (injectors 46a, 46b, 46c) provided in the fuel supply flow path (fig 1), the injectors being configured to supply the fuel gas to the fuel cell after regulating a pressure of the fuel gas (paragraph [0012]);
a pressure sensor (paragraph [0013], pressure sensor) configured to detect the pressure of the fuel gas on a downstream side of the plurality of injectors (fig 1, pressure sensor P3 is shown downstream, although note that each of the paths is equipped with P1, P2, and P3, paragraph [0013]); and
one or more processors (paragraph [0014], control device comprising a CPU) that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory (paragraph [0014], memory),
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the fuel cell system to:
control power generation of the fuel cell (paragraph [0014], controls the entire fuel cell system);
open and close the plurality of injectors in accordance with a fuel gas pressure command value that is based on a request from the load, to discharge the fuel gas into the fuel supply flow path (paragraph [0006], control device that determines abnormalities, drives the plurality of injectors, and determines if pressure value obtained by sensor differs from expected pressure value); and
perform failure determination for the injectors based on the fuel gas pressure command value and a gas pressure detection value detected by the pressure sensor (paragraph [0006], determines if pressure value obtained by sensor differs from expected pressure value).
Egawa teaches the failure determination, but is quiet regarding performing such in a case where a current value output from the fuel cell is equal to or greater than a detection-effective current threshold.
However, Kasahara teaches a step of determining whether or not the output current value is larger than a predetermined first threshold (paragraph [0036]), and if determined to be greater, then to drive the first injector and second injector by duty ratio control (paragraph [0037]), to suppress the occurrence of partial fuel gas deficiency (paragraph [0043]), so that the pressure can be maintained within a predetermined range (paragraph [0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an additional step of determining the output current value with respect to a predetermined threshold, so as to suppress partial fuel gas deficiency, prior to the failure analysis of Egawa.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors cause the fuel cell system to, in the failure determination for the injectors, determine that at least one of the injectors has failed in a case where a difference obtained by subtracting the gas pressure detection value from the fuel gas pressure command value exceeds a first detection difference (Egawa, paragraph [0018], expected pressure vs obtained pressure to determine abnormality, paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors cause the fuel cell system to start the failure determination in a case where the gas pressure detection value is greater than the fuel gas pressure command value (Egawa, paragraph [0020], upward deviation, paragraph [0023], if results showing upward deviation then there is an abnormality).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors cause the fuel cell system to start the failure determination in a case where the fuel gas pressure command value corresponding to the current value is within a predetermined range (Egawa, paragraph [0020], predetermined threshold or more).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the plurality of injectors are two injectors (Egawa, shows three injectors, so 46a and 46b can be construed as the two), and the detection-effective current threshold is a maximum current value output table by the fuel cell with only one of the injectors, or is a current value based on the maximum current value (Egawa, paragraph [0020], upper limit can be set as threshold, note that although Egawa is directed to pressure, the target pressure can be calculated from the target current).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors cause the fuel cell system to perform the failure determination in a state where all of the plurality of injectors are driven (Egawa, paragraph [0022-0023], all injectors were driven).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the detection-effective current threshold is a constant current value output by the fuel cell using mutually different constant amounts of the fuel gas discharged by all of the plurality of injectors except one of the injectors (note Egawa discloses sequentially driving the injectors, thus after the second but prior to the third is a step without one of the injectors, note relationship between pressure and current).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors cause the fuel cell system to perform the failure determination for the injectors when at least one of the plurality of injectors discharges a maximum dischargeable fuel gas amount (Egawa, paragraph [0015], upper limit abnormality).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches wherein the one or more processors cause the fuel cell system to, in a case where it is determined that at least one of the plurality of injectors has failed, limit a current output from the fuel cell to a current value or less that is outputtable by the fuel cell using a maximum fuel gas amount that is dischargeable by at least one of the injectors that has not failed (Egawa, paragraph [0025], if some of the injectors are abnormal, power generation of the fuel cell may be restricted, operation continued using normal injectors).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egawa as modified by Kasahara as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ishikawa (US 2010/0255397).
Regarding claim 9, the combination is quiet to wherein the one or more processors cause the fuel cell system to cause the plurality of injectors to increase an amount of the fuel gas to be discharged, in a case where the gas pressure detection value falls below the fuel gas pressure command value.
Ishikawa teaches that response performance in a fuel cell can be improved, by decreasing a pressure adjusting error, where the system comprising a control means for driving and controlling the on/off valve for adjusting a gas state on the upstream side of the fuel supply passage (abstract). The control means calculates a feed-forward correction flow rate based on the drive cycle of the on/off valve (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a step of increasing an amount of the fuel gas to be discharged when gas pressure detection value falls below the gas pressure command value, as a means of regulating the flow rate.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egawa as modified by Kasahara as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yamanaka (JP 2019-07183 A).
Regarding claim 11, the combination is quiet to wherein the one or more processors cause the fuel cell system to determine that the plurality of injectors have failed in a case where the difference obtained by subtracting the gas pressure detection value from the fuel gas pressure command value exceeds a second detection difference larger than the first detection difference.
Yamanaka teaches a pressure sensor installed between two valves in the piping that supplies fuel gas to the fuel cell, and that with the two valves closed, the presence or absence of valve leakage is determined by the slope of the pressure value detected by the pressure sensor (paragraph [0002]). Yamanaka teaches that the amount of pressure decrease per unit time measured by the pressure sensor depends on the number of faulty pressure reducing values (paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a step of determining the amount of pressure decrease per unit time measured by the pressure sensor, so as to determine whether there is a leak.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
