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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the Preliminary Amendment filed on December 23, 2024. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on December 23, 2024 and February 27, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because empty boxes 102, 104 ,106, 116, 302, 304 and 306 in FIGS. 1 and 3, respectively, need suitable descriptive legends (see MPEP §608.02 [R-2], Section V: DRAWING STANDARDS, item (n) and (o); and 37 CFR 1.84 (o)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 9 and 10, these claims present a device and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium according to the method of claims 1-8. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-8 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 9 and 10. In addition, it is clearly seen that claims 9 and 10 are apparatus claims which present an apparatus inherently performing the function disclosed in the method claims 1-8, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 101 and 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.
The statutory categories under 35 U.S.C. 101 are expressed in the alternative, i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Claims 1-8 claim a method for determining a state in a stack of fuel cells or electrolysis cell, but it recites no process steps; instead, claims 1-8 recites structural limitations of a device. Thus, claims 1-8, which encompass two statutory categories, i.e., method for determining a state in a stack of fuel cells or electrolysis cells and device for determining a state in a stack of fuel cells or electrolysis cells, violates 35 U.S.C. 5 101. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548, 1551 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990).
Moreover, there are two separate requirements set forth in the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. 112:
(A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that applicants regard as their invention; and
(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
It is unclear whether claims 1-10 claims an apparatus or a method. Claims 1-10, therefore, are indefinite in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Lyell, 17 USPQ2d at 1552.
Claims 1-9 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice (where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i); please also read MPEP § 608.01(m) for more details).
According to the form of claim required in 37 CFR 1.75(e), where the nature of the case admits, as in the case of an improvement, any independent claim should contain in the following order:
(1) A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known,
(2) A phrase such as “wherein the improvement comprises," and
(3) Those elements, steps and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion.
As clearly seen, claims 1-10 contain only a preamble, not the phrase such as the method or the apparatus “comprises/comprising:” and a body of the claim including “elements, steps and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion”.
With regard to claims 1-8, these claims do not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what steps or functions are to be performed.
Finally, with regard to claims 1-10, it is clear that “a state” in a fuel cell stack usually refers to its operating condition (such as its voltage, temperature, hydration level, and gas pressure, which defines how well the stack is performing at any given time) (emphasis added); that is, “a state” is an abstract idea. On the other hand, it appears that the first model, the second model and the third model are physical structures since “the first model 102 is coupled to the second model 104” and “the second model 104 is coupled to the third model 106” as disclosed in paragraphs [0031]-[0032] and recited in the claims (emphasis added). Therefore, it is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art how to interrelate two different entities such as an abstract idea, “a state”, with physical structures, “the first model, the second model and the third model”. In other words, how “the state is determined from the at least one input variable, the first model, the second model and the third model” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). In brief, these claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Without setting forth any steps involved in the process results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicants are advised to follow a proper method claim format that conforms to current U.S. practice (For example, "A method for/of comprising steps of:" and a series of active, positive steps involved in the process) (emphasis added).
The essential purpose of patent examination is to determine whether or not the claims are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear, so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. Therefore, the uncertainties of claim scope should be removed as much as possible.
For examining purposes, this application will be examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robin et al. (NPL: “Development and experimental validation of a PEM fuel cell 2D-model to study heterogeneities effects along large-area cell surface”).
Robin et al. teaches a PEM fuel cell 2D-model comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
752
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1, 9 and 10, a method for determining a state (operating conditions and local conditions) in a stack of fuel cells or electrolysis cells, or in a fuel cell or electrolysis cell (stack of fuel cells constituting a promising power delivery system), wherein at least one membrane electrode unit (membrane electrode assembly MEA) and plates (bipolar plates, monopolar plate and the end plate) are provided, with a membrane electrode unit (membrane electrode assembly MEA) being arranged between each, wherein with a first model (Fig. 2, CHANNEL) inflows of process media (Fig. 2, O2, H2O, N2) from a periphery and outflows of a process product (Fig. 2, O2, H2O, N2) into the periphery as well as electrical input and output variables are modeled, wherein segments of the plates (bipolar plates, monopolar plate and the end plate) are modeled with a second model (Fig. 2, GDL + AL), wherein, with a third model (Fig. 2, MEMBRANE), the membrane electrode unit (membrane electrode assembly MEA) or segments of the membrane electrode unit (membrane electrode assembly MEA) are modeled, wherein the first model (Fig. 2, CHANNEL) and the second model (Fig. 2, GDL + AL) have at least one coupling variable (Pc(O2), Pc(H2O), Pc(N2), T), wherein the second model (Fig. 2, GDL + AL) and the third model (Fig. 2, MEMBRANE) are coupled segmentally via at least one coupling variable (PAL(O2), PAL(H2O), PAL(N2), T), wherein at least one input variable (one of O2, H2O, N2) of the first model (Fig. 2, CHANNEL) is specified, wherein the state (operating conditions and local conditions) is determined (Fig. 2, calculation of T, ngas, nliq, water activity, pressure drop) from the at least one input variable (one of O2, H2O, N2), the first model (Fig. 2, CHANNEL), the second model (Fig. 2, GDL + AL) and the third model (Fig. 2, MEMBRANE) (For more details, please read the Abstract; Tables 1-3; Figs. 1-6; and sections: Experimental test, Modeling, Results and discussions: pages 10214-10221).
With regard to claim 10, a non-transitory, computer-readable medium is well- known to one having ordinary skill in the art for storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer (measuring device as disclosed in the last paragraph at page 20221) to perform the method of claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, with the second model (Fig. 2, GDL + AL) a physical effect (effects of a GDL structuring) is modeled per segment, or for a bundle of several segments (Fig. 16; and page 10225, last paragraph of the left column continued to the right column).
With regard to claim 3, with the third model (Fig. 2, MEMBRANE) a physical effect of the membrane electrode unit (membrane electrode assembly MEA) is modeled or per segment of the membrane electrode unit (membrane electrode assembly MEA) (Figs. 4 and 5; Table 3; and page 10218, last paragraph of the right column).
With regard to claim 4, during operation of the stack, the fuel cell, or the electrolysis cell (stack of fuel cells constituting a promising power delivery system), a measurement is taken characterizing the operation, wherein the state (operating conditions and local conditions) is determined during operation dependent on the measurement (Abstract; and page 10227, last paragraph of the left column continued to the right column).
With regard to claim 5, during operation a variable (current density and temperature distribution measurements) is determined for operation depending on the state (operating conditions and local conditions) during operation, and the stack, the fuel cell, or the electrolysis cell (stack of fuel cells constituting a promising power delivery system), is controlled, as a function of the variable (Abstract).
With regard to claim 7, depending on the state (operating conditions and local conditions), a design parameter for the stack, fuel cell or electrolysis cell (stack of fuel cells constituting a promising power delivery system) or a part thereof is determined (Abstract; Fig. 4; and page 10213, top paragraph of the right column).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants’ attention is invited to the following whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Ikezoe (US 7,504,831 B2) teaches a cell-voltage measuring structure for a fuel cell stack provided with a plurality of stacks of unit cells including conductive separators.
Yoo et al. (US 11,721,820 B2) teaches an apparatus for measuring a cell pitch of a fuel cell stack, wherein each unit cell has a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) interposed between a pair of metal separators.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights