DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 31, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1 and 10 have both been amended to include that the power provided by the vehicle is output uniformly during an entirety of a period of time that the vehicle travel on a stretch of road. A review of the specification, however, does not disclose this newly claimed feature. The only discussion in the instant specification related to uniformity is directed to maintaining a uniform speed as depicted in the instant applications Figure2 which reflects a constant velocity over a period of time (a feature that is already recited in the second to last clause of these claims), not toward maintaining a uniform power output. Further, there is no discussion related to such a constant power output occurring over the entire time that the vehicle travels over a stretch of road. Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koebler et al. (8,712,650).
Regarding claims 1 and 10 (as best understood), Koebler discloses a fuel cell vehicle and a method for operating a fuel cell vehicle (see e.g., Col. 4, lines 49-55 describing how the power management optimization is applicable to the operation of fuel cell vehicle), comprising:
predictively determining anticipated running resistances on an upcoming stretch of road (see e.g.,. Col. 7, lines 32-63 describing a series of external forces are used to determine the optimized power management of the vehicle),
detecting parameters determining a performance capacity of a fuel cell device and a battery (see e.g., Col. 8, lines 32-40 describing how the operating status of the vehicle sub-components, including at least the capacity of the fuel source are used in optimizing the power management routine),
determining a velocity which can be maintained uniformly over the upcoming stretch of road with the anticipated running resistances (see e.g., Fig. 6 showing the overall control logic used in determining and then maintaining the optimal speed for a given route; see also Col., 6, line 59 to Col. 7, line 11; Col. 14, liens 31-48; and Col. 18, line57 to Col. 19, line 3 describing how an optimal/target speed is determined based on both the sensor detected the external forces and predicted/expected external forces based on historical data), and
limiting power provided by the fuel cell vehicle to a value required to achieve the velocity (see e.g., Fig. 2, Col. 11, lines 18-30 describing how the calculated optimal power is automatically applied to the prime mover; and Col. 15, lines 7-20 and 48-55; Col. 20, lines 30-60 describing how the system manages the power supplied to achieve the optimized/target speed, where “controls and coordinates the various components of the system”), the power provided by the fuel cell vehicle being output uniformly during an entirety of a period of time that the fuel cell vehicle travels on the stretch of road (i.e., one skilled in the relevant art would readily understand that if the given segment of time/road is sufficiently short that when the above-described uniformly maintained speed is achieved, then the power being output by the prime mover will be uniform over that small segment).
Regarding claim 2, Koebler further discloses that environment parameters are considered in the determining of the performance capacity (see e.g., Col. 21, lines 29-62 describing how environmental information are detected and factored into determining the optimization scheme used in the vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Koebler further discloses that data of a navigation system and/or traffic messages and/or the data of a weather service are considered in the predictive determining of the running resistances (see e.g., Col. 8, lines 22-24 which discloses that all three of these data can be factored into optimizing the power management).
Regarding claim 4, Koebler further discloses that a local controller of the fuel cell vehicle is used to determine the velocity and the power (see e.g., Fig. 10 showing the vehicle’s local power management system; and Col. 23, lines 40-61) .
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Koebler discloses that system determines an optimal travel velocity based on external and internal considerations and that the system determines an optimal velocity to travel along a route. One skilled in the relevant art could apply this optimized velocity to read upon the “maximum” velocity which is applied when the vehicle follows this determination. That is, this optimal velocity may be considered a “maximized” velocity that the system has determined for an idealized travel route.
Regarding claim 6, Koebler further discloses that a repeat determination of the optimal velocity is done in an iterative manner while driving along the evaluated stretch of road for the rest of the upcoming stretch of road (see Fig. 4 and Col. 15, lines 48-55 describing how the system iteratively repeats the velocity optimization).
Regarding claim 7, Koebler further discloses that the current traffic situation with the actual running resistances is considered while driving along the stretch of road (see e.g., Col. 3, lines 41-67 describing how the system uses both traffic data and external forces, such as wind and slope of the road in the optimization).
Regarding claim 9, Koebler further discloses that a charge of the battery is considered when determining the optimal velocity (see e.g., Col. 4, lines 1-10 and Col. 10, lines 8-12 describing that the state of the battery is also used in optimization determination).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koebler in view of Duschl et al. (WO 2016020195, see previously provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, while Koebler discloses that the vehicle’s optimization system uses inputs from a variety of sensors, including optical sensors to determine external factors in the optimalization and that the location of traffic signs is one such factor (see Col. 21, lines 29-62 and Col. 8, lines 5-11), it does not specifically recite that the system uses traffic sign recognition in its determination.
Duschl teaches another vehicle optimization system which uses sensors for traffic sign recognition to determining the external factors affecting the determination of an optimized control strategy for the vehicle (see bottom of page 3 through top of page 4 of the provided translation discussing the use of sensors to retrieve route attributes, such as traffic signs to obtain the posted speed limit).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application modify the method of Koebler to use real-time traffic sign information in its optimization determination as taught by Duschl to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using sensors and image recognition software to obtain location specific data for a vehicle) to known devices (e.g., vehicle’s using measured/detected attributes about its surrounding to determine an optimal power/velocity strategy) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a system that can take into account real time changes to route conditions due to changes to road signs).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koebler in view of Park et al. (10,464,547).
Regarding claims 11-12, as discussed above with respect to claim 9, Koebler further discloses that a charge of the battery is considered when determining the optimal velocity (see e.g., Col. 4, lines 1-10 and Col. 10, lines 8-12 describing that the state of the battery is also used in optimization determination), but does not specifically recite that the prime mover may also be recharging the battery during certain stretches of optimized travel.
Park teaches another fuel cell vehicle wherein, based on the state of charge of the battery, a controller can turn on the fuel cell stack to maintain/charge the battery (see Col. 4, lines 30-43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application modify the method of Koebler to selectively recharge a battery via the vehicle’s fuel cell as taught by Park during the above short-time-window velocity optimized power delivery of Koebler to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using one source of electrical power in a vehicle to actively charge a vehicle battery during operation) to known devices (e.g., fuel cell vehicles) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a vehicle that runs its power delivery system optimally by transferring any additional power output into the battery).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner does not agree with the applicant’s argument that Koebler does not disclose or suggest the newly added limitations in claims 1 and 10. Namely, these claims, even if they were not deemed new matter, do not overcome the fact that the optimized power delivery disclosed by Koebler implicitly runs at a constant power output over the course of a sufficiently small time frame. For example, if the segment were only a few feet, Koebler (while maintaining a uniform velocity), would implicitly result in the power being output being maintained at a constant/uniform level. Therefore, Koebler’s uniform velocity feature reads upon the newly added limitation when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “stretch of road.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618