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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to DE102017004448A1 failing to disclose or suggest amended claim 18 (see Remarks filed 8/28/2025), said reference is no longer solely relied upon to teach amended claim 18. A combination of DE102017004448A1 and a new reference Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0356748A1) disclosing a waste heat recovery system is relied upon to teach amended claim 18 as set forth in this Office Action below.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Nomura, Bisinger or Routtenberg failing to cure the argued deficiencies of DE102017004448A1 (see Remarks filed 8/28/2025), said references are not relied upon to teach or suggest the argued deficiencies.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claim(s) 18-26, 32, 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017004448A1, refer to English machine translation by EPO, in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0356748A1).
Regarding claim 18, DE102017004448A1 discloses a utility vehicle (vehicle [0001], Fig. 1) comprising:
a body or a trailer with a consumer (tractor motor 4, auxiliary units 20, etc. [0018]-[0020]); and
a fuel cell device (fuel cell system [0018]), which is designed:
to be connectable as a range extender of the utility vehicle (electrical power supplied via power electronics unit 3 [0018]).
Further regarding claim 18, DE102017004448A1 does not disclose to supply the consumer with waste heat.
Yamazaki discloses a simplified waste heat recovery system in a fuel cell vehicle including a fuel cell, a first heat exchanger and a waste heat recovery flow passage configured to branch the coolant circulating through the coolant circulation flow passage and recover waste heat of the fuel cell through heat exchange with air, and a second heat exchanger disposed in the waste heat recovery flow passage, where the second heat exchanger exchanges heat between air conditioning air and the coolant (Title, Abstract, [0016], [0088], [0098]).
DE102017004448A1 and Yamazaki are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of DE102017004448A1 to incorporate heat exchanger(s) and a waste heat recovery flow passage to recycle waste heat for interior heating in a simplified waste heat recovery system, as taught by Yamazaki.
Further regarding claim 18 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “a fuel cell device, which is designed: to be connectable…and to supply…”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 19, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses the utility vehicle is a truck (truck [0018]); and/or the fuel cell device is designed to be operated when the utility vehicle is parked.
Further regarding claim 19 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “the fuel cell device is designed to be operated when the utility vehicle is parked”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 20, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses the fuel cell device is designed: to charge a traction battery of the utility vehicle with electrical energy and/or to control the temperature of the traction battery with waste heat (electrical power supplied to traction motor 4; entire electrical energy provided via battery and fuel cell and distributed by power electronics 3 [0018]-[0020]); and/or to supply a cab heater of the utility vehicle with waste heat and/or electrical energy; and/or to supply at least one auxiliary unit of the utility vehicle with waste heat and/or electrical energy.
Further regarding claim 20 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “the fuel cell device is designed: to charge a traction battery of the utility vehicle with electrical energy and/or to control the temperature of the traction battery with waste heat; and/or to supply a cab heater of the utility vehicle with waste heat and/or electrical energy; and/or to supply at least one auxiliary unit of the utility vehicle with waste heat and/or electrical energy”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 21, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 21 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “the fuel cell device, when the utility vehicle is parked, is designed: to control the temperature of the traction battery with waste heat, to supply the cab heater with waste heat, to supply the consumer with waste heat and/or to supply the auxiliary unit with waste heat; and, at the same time to charge the traction battery with electrical energy, to supply the consumer with electrical energy, to supply the cab heater with electrical energy and/or to supply the auxiliary unit with electrical energy”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 22, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 22 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “the fuel cell device, while the utility vehicle is being driven, is designed: to control the temperature of the traction battery with waste heat, to supply the cab heater with waste heat, to supply the consumer with waste heat and/or to supply the auxiliary unit with waste heat; and, at the same time to charge the traction battery with electrical energy, to supply the consumer with electrical energy, to supply the cab heater with electrical energy and/or to supply the auxiliary unit with electrical energy”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 23, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses a control unit which is designed to control an activation, a deactivation and/or an operation of the fuel cell device (controller 22 controls power electronics 3 [0022]), based on: a planned route of the utility vehicle; and/or a planned driving time, rest time and/or break time of a driver of the utility vehicle; and/or a current and/or planned loading of the utility vehicle; and/or a current and/or predicted climate of the utility vehicle.
Further regarding claim 23 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “a control unit which is designed to control an activation, a deactivation and/or an operation of the fuel cell device, based on: a planned route of the utility vehicle; and/or a planned driving time, rest time and/or break time of a driver of the utility vehicle; and/or a current and/or planned loading of the utility vehicle; and/or a current and/or predicted climate of the utility vehicle”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 24, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses a control unit which is designed to automatically control an activation, a deactivation and/or an operation of the fuel cell device (controller 22 controls power electronics 3 [0022]), based on: a planned route of the utility vehicle; and/or a planned driving time, rest time and/or break time of a driver of the utility vehicle, wherein the planned driving time, rest time, and/or break time are provided by a tachograph; and/or a current and/or planned loading of the body or trailer; and/or a current and/or predicted climate over a planned route of the utility vehicle.
Further regarding claim 24 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “a control unit which is designed to automatically control an activation, a deactivation and/or an operation of the fuel cell device, based on: a planned route of the utility vehicle; and/or a planned driving time, rest time and/or break time of a driver of the utility vehicle, wherein the planned driving time, rest time, and/or break time are provided by a tachograph; and/or a current and/or planned loading of the body or trailer; and/or a current and/or predicted climate over a planned route of the utility vehicle”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 25, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses body/trailer interface which can be supplied with electrical energy and/or waste heat from the fuel cell device and to which the consumer is connected ([0018]-[0020], Fig. 1).
Further regarding claim 25 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “body/trailer interface which can be supplied with electrical energy and/or waste heat from the fuel cell device”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 26, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 26 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “the body/trailer interface is a standardized interface to which a variety of different bodies or trailers for the utility vehicle can be connected; and/or the consumer is detachably connected to the body/trailer interface; and/or the body/trailer interface is arranged in a region of a cab of the utility vehicle; and/or the body/trailer interface comprises an electrical interface for supplying electrical energy to the consumer; and/or the body/trailer interface comprises a fluid interface for supplying waste heat to the consumer, wherein the fluid interface is fluidically connected and/or thermally coupled to a cooling system of the fuel cell device”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 32, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses the fuel cell device is embodied as a pre-assembled and/or independently testable module, which has a cooling fluid interface, an electrical interface and/or a control interface (fuel cell has a cooling system [0018]).
Further regarding claim 32 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “the fuel cell device is embodied as a pre-assembled and/or independently testable module, which has a cooling fluid interface, an electrical interface and/or a control interface”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 36, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses the body is supported on a frame of the utility vehicle and/or is arranged behind a cab of the utility vehicle; and/or the body is a tank body, an emergency vehicle body, a cleaning body, a loading body, a cooling body or a heating body; and/or the trailer comprises a tank, a loading area, a loading space, a cooling unit, a heating unit and/or a pump; and/or the trailer is a semi-trailer; and/or the utility vehicle is a trailer truck or an articulated truck; and/or the consumer comprises an electrically driven machine and/or a heat exchanger (consumer includes traction motor 4 [0018] or cooling system 11 [0023]).
Regarding claim 37, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses the consumer comprises an electrical energy storage device (battery [0018]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 38, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses the trailer has an electrically drivable axle that is operable with electrical energy from the electrical energy storage device of the consumer, and/or charges the electrical energy storage device by recuperation during driving operation; and/or the consumer further comprises a heat exchanger for controlling the temperature of the electrical energy storage device; and/or the consumer further comprises an electrically driven machine, which is operable with electrical energy from the electrical energy storage device of the consumer; and/or the electrical energy storage device can be charged externally by means of an electrical charging connection (battery stores excess power, this power can be made available again to the electrical system of truck [0018], electrical energy provided via battery and distributed accordingly via power electronics [0020]).
Further regarding claim 38 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “the trailer has an electrically drivable axle that is operable with electrical energy from the electrical energy storage device of the consumer, and/or charges the electrical energy storage device by recuperation during driving operation; and/or the consumer further comprises a heat exchanger for controlling the temperature of the electrical energy storage device; and/or the consumer further comprises an electrically driven machine, which is operable with electrical energy from the electrical energy storage device of the consumer; and/or the electrical energy storage device can be charged externally by means of an electrical charging connection”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 39, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses the trailer has an electrically drivable axle that is operable with electrical energy from the electrical energy storage device of the consumer when the trailer is uncoupled from a tractor of the utility vehicle; and/or the consumer further comprises an electrically driven machine, which is operable with electrical energy from the electrical energy storage device of the consumer in the uncoupled state of the trailer or body from the utility vehicle; and/or the electrical energy storage device can be charged externally by means of an electrical charging connection, wherein the electrical charging connection is arranged on the utility vehicle separately from the trailer or body (battery stores excess power, this power can be made available again to the electrical system of truck [0018], electrical energy provided via battery and distributed accordingly via power electronics [0020], motor [0018]).
Further regarding claim 39 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “the trailer has an electrically drivable axle that is operable with electrical energy from the electrical energy storage device of the consumer when the trailer is uncoupled from a tractor of the utility vehicle; and/or the consumer further comprises an electrically driven machine, which is operable with electrical energy from the electrical energy storage device of the consumer in the uncoupled state of the trailer or body from the utility vehicle; and/or the electrical energy storage device can be charged externally by means of an electrical charging connection, wherein the electrical charging connection is arranged on the utility vehicle separately from the trailer or body”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 40, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. DE102017004448A1 further discloses the fuel cell device is designed to supply the consumer with electrical energy (electrical power supplied to traction motor 4; entire electrical energy provided via battery and fuel cell and distributed by power electronics 3 [0018]-[0020]).
Further regarding claim 40 reciting an intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “a fuel cell device, which is designed to supply”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP 2114.
In this instance, DE102017004448A1 discloses the claimed structure and, thus, is capable of performing the intended use.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017004448A1, refer to English machine translation by EPO, as applied to claims 18-26, 32, 36-40 above, in view of Nomura et al. (US 2003/0155160A1).
Regarding claim 27, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, DE102017004448A1 does not disclose the body/trailer interface is a standardized interface to which a variety of different bodies or trailers for the utility vehicle can be detachably connected; and/or the consumer is plugged in and/or screwed onto the body/trailer interface; and/or the body/trailer interface is arranged in a rear region of a cab of the utility vehicle.
Nomura discloses a fuel cell vehicle, including a truck, wherein a vehicle 10 and mobile unit 20 are jointed via a joint section 30 in a manner such that the mobile unit 20 can be trailed by the vehicle 10 and energy provided from the vehicle 10 can be used for cogeneration within mobile unit 20 (Title, Abstract, [0046], Fig. 1-3). Nomura further discloses the system realizes cogeneration when the electromobile is stopping and moving ([0011]).
DE102017004448A1 and Nomura are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE102017004448A1 to incorporate a joint section joining the vehicle with a mobile unit because Nomura teaches mounting a mobile unit to an electromobile having a fuel cell power generator that is operable while moving and stopping.
Claim(s) 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017004448A1, refer to English machine translation by EPO, as applied to claims 18-26, 32, 36-40 above, in view of DE10045750A1.
Regarding claim 28, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, DE102017004448A1 does not disclose a ladder frame, wherein the fuel cell device is arranged within the ladder frame.
DE10045750A1 discloses a vehicle with a fuel cell and/or battery including ladder frame 11 and an attachment support frame 5 designed to accommodate batteries 31, fuel cell 32, gas tank 33, power electronics 34 and control unit 35 ([0007]-[0010], [0031] Fig. 2). DE10045750A1 further discloses high stability and rigidity ([0008]).
DE102017004448A1 and DE10045750A1 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE102017004448A1 to incorporate a ladder frame in which fuel cell is arranged because DE10045750A1 teaches an improved design having high stability and rigidity.
Regarding claim 29, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, DE102017004448A1 does not disclose the fuel cell device is arranged directly below a cab of the utility vehicle.
DE10045750A1 discloses a vehicle with a fuel cell and/or battery including ladder frame 11 and an attachment support frame 5 designed to accommodate batteries 31, fuel cell 32, gas tank 33, power electronics 34 and control unit 35, wherein fuel cell 32 is arranged below cab 3 ([0007]-[0010], [0031] Fig. 2). DE10045750A1 further discloses high stability and rigidity ([0008]).
DE102017004448A1 and DE10045750A1 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE102017004448A1 to incorporate a ladder frame in which fuel cell is arranged because DE10045750A1 teaches an improved design having high stability and rigidity.
Regarding claim 30, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, DE102017004448A1 does not disclose the fuel cell device has a fuel cell stack and a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank is arranged inside the ladder frame and/or behind the fuel cell stack with respect to a forward direction of travel of the utility vehicle.
DE10045750A1 discloses a vehicle with a fuel cell and/or battery including ladder frame 11 and an attachment support frame 5 designed to accommodate batteries 31, fuel cell 32, gas tank 33, power electronics 34 and control unit 35 ([0007]-[0010], [0031] Fig. 2). DE10045750A1 further discloses high stability and rigidity ([0008]).
DE102017004448A1 and DE10045750A1 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE102017004448A1 to incorporate a ladder frame in which fuel cell and tank are arranged because DE10045750A1 teaches an improved design having high stability and rigidity.
Regarding claim 31, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, DE102017004448A1 does not disclose a plurality of traction batteries, wherein the fuel cell device has substantially the same dimensions and/or connection points as each of the plurality of traction batteries, so that the fuel cell device and the plurality of traction batteries can be arranged interchangeably.
DE10045750A1 discloses a vehicle with a fuel cell and/or battery including ladder frame 11 and an attachment support frame 5 designed to accommodate batteries 31, fuel cell 32, gas tank 33, power electronics 34 and control unit 35 ([0007]-[0010], [0031] Fig. 2). DE10045750A1 further discloses high stability and rigidity ([0008]).
DE102017004448A1 and DE10045750A1 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE102017004448A1 to incorporate a ladder frame in which fuel cell and batteries are arranged because DE10045750A1 teaches an improved design having high stability and rigidity.
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017004448A1, refer to English machine translation by EPO, as applied to claims 18-26, 32, 36-40 above, in view of Routtenberg et al. (US 2004/0205032A1).
Regarding claim 33, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, DE102017004448A1 does not further disclose the fuel cell device is embodied as a reversible fuel cell device for producing hydrogen during recuperation when braking the utility vehicle.
Routtenberg discloses regenerative fuel cell vehicles, wherein fuel cells can be operated in reverse to generate hydrogen and employ regenerative braking to produce electricity that can power the PEME to produce additional hydrogen fuel (Title, Abstract, [0071]-[0084]).
DE102017004448A1 and Routtenberg are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embody the fuel cell of DE102017004448A1 as a regenerative fuel cell because Routtenberg teaches improved efficiency by producing hydrogen within the vehicle using regenerative braking.
Regarding claim 34, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, DE102017004448A1 does not further disclose the fuel cell device is embodied as a reversible fuel cell device for producing hydrogen during a connectable continuous braking mode of the utility vehicle.
Routtenberg discloses regenerative fuel cell vehicles, wherein fuel cells can be operated in reverse to generate hydrogen and employ regenerative braking to produce electricity that can power the PEME to produce additional hydrogen fuel (Title, Abstract, [0071]-[0084]).
DE102017004448A1 and Routtenberg are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embody the fuel cell of DE102017004448A1 as a regenerative fuel cell because Routtenberg teaches improved efficiency by producing hydrogen within the vehicle using regenerative braking.
Regarding claim 35, modified DE102017004448A1 discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, DE102017004448A1 does not further disclose the fuel cell device comprises a polymer electrolyte fuel cell, a direct methanol fuel cell and/or a reforming methanol fuel cell.
Routtenberg discloses fuel cell vehicles, wherein the fuel cell is a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (Title, Abstract, [0102]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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 R