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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0158203, filed on 11/17/2021.
Claim Interpretation
A fundamental principle contained in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is that applicants are their own lexicographers. They can define in the claims what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention essentially in whatever terms they choose so long as any special meaning assigned to a term is clearly set forth in the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01. In Claim 1, the use of the term, “section”, in the limitations “temperature control section” and “cold start section” of line 11 is used to refer to operation modes when the fuel cell stack is operated at an interval after cold start and at time of cold start, respectively. In light of the instant specification [pg. 19-21; Fig. 2], Examiner has interpreted the claimed limitations as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites, “wherein the controller controls the COD heater to be turned on at a time that precedes a time when the vehicle is expected to enter the downhill road by a preceding time for COD operating obtained by dividing the COD pre-consumption energy by a maximum output of the COD heater.” It is unclear as to how the preceding time for COD operating is obtained by dividing the COD pre-consumption energy by a maximum output of the COD heater. In particular, it is unclear what units may be used for pre-consumption energy and for maximum output such that their quotient would result in a unit of time. For examination purpose, the claim is interpreted such that the preceding time for COD operating is indirectly based on COD pre-consumption energy and maximum output of the COD heater.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US20120122000A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a fuel cell system [pars. 0033-0043,0061-63,0072-82; Figs. 2,4] comprising:
a radiator 21 configured to exchange heat with coolant discharged from a fuel cell stack 10;
a coolant supply pump 25 configured to supply the coolant to the fuel cell stack;
a COD heater 31 configured to consume electric power generated by the fuel cell stack;
a valve 24 connected to the fuel cell stack, the radiator, the coolant supply pump, and the COD heater to control a flow of the coolant; and
a controller 100 configured to control an operating start time and output of the COD heater to consume energy generated by the fuel cell stack depending on a state of charge (SOC) of a battery (not shown) and an operating state of the fuel cell stack,
wherein the controller is configured to control the valve (inherent) so that the coolant flows to the COD heater in a temperature control section (i.e., during operation of an air-conditioner when heating of vehicle interior is desired and battery SOC is lower than the lower limit 51 rendering the PTC heater 41 inoperable and COD is used to convert electrical energy generated by fuel cell stack into heat to increase the temperature of the coolant) after a cold start section of the fuel cell stack (inherent since fuel cell stack is operating in idle stop mode).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee discloses the fuel cell system further comprising a heater core 42 disposed between the COD heater and the valve, a PTC heater 41 for vehicle interior heating, and an air conditioning controller configured to control the PTC heater,
wherein when an inlet temperature of the fuel cell stack is less than a required temperature of the heater core, the air conditioning controller transmits a command to turn on the COD heater to the controller [pars. 0072-76; Figs. 2,4].
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.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 18 above.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee fails to disclose wherein when an inlet temperature of the heater core is less than the required temperature of the heater core after the COD heater is turned on, the air conditioning controller transmits a command to increase an output of the COD heater to the controller. However, since Lee discloses operating the COD heater for increasing the temperature of the heater core which is used to heat the interior of the vehicle, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the system of Lee wherein, when the inlet temperature of the heater core is less than the required temperature of the heater core after the COD heater is turned on, the air conditioning controller transmits a command to increase and output of the COD heater to the controller in order to bring the temperature of the heater core to a suitable temperature for heating interior of the vehicle [pars. 0072-76; Figs. 2,4].
Regarding Claim 20, Lee fails to explicitly discloses wherein, when the inlet temperature of the fuel cell stack is equal to or higher than the required temperature of the heater core, and when the inlet temperature of the heater core is equal to or higher than the required temperature of the heater core after the COD heater is turned on, the air conditioning controller controls an output of the PTC heater by a value obtained by subtracting an amount of heat supplied by the heater core from a required amount of heating; and the amount of heat supplied by the heater core is calculated based on the inlet temperature of the heater core, the inlet temperature of the fuel cell stack, and heat transfer efficiency of the heater core. However, the object of the heater core is to control the temperature of the interior of the vehicle to a suitable temperature. It is in the purview of an ordinary skilled artisan to configure the air conditioning controller to control the output of the PTC heater to not exceed the desired temperature for heating the interior vehicle. That is, an ordinary skilled artisan would readily understand that the claimed limitation “a value obtained by subtracting an amount of heat supplied by the heater core from a required amount of heating” merely reflects the amount of heat necessary to bring the vehicle interior temperature to the desired set temperature. Moreover, the ordinary skilled artisan would readily appreciate that the amount of heat supplied by the heater core is generally calculated based on the inlet temperature of the heater core, the inlet temperature of the fuel cell stack, and heat transfer efficiency of the heater core. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the system of Lee wherein, when the inlet temperature of the fuel cell stack is equal to or higher than the required temperature of the heater core, and when the inlet temperature of the heater core is equal to or higher than the required temperature of the heater core after the COD heater is turned on, the air conditioning controller controls an output of the PTC heater by a value obtained by subtracting an amount of heat supplied by the heater core from a required amount of heating without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the amount of heat supplied by the heater core is calculated based on the inlet temperature of the heater core, the inlet temperature of the fuel cell stack, and heat transfer efficiency of the heater core.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umayahara (US20100248053A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee fails to disclose wherein when the fuel cell stack has a required amount of power generation of zero, the controller limits an upper voltage limit of the fuel cell stack to operate the fuel cell stack at a net output; and the net output of the fuel cell stack corresponds to a value obtained by subtracting an auxiliary equipment consumption output, which is an output consumed by high-voltage components constituting the fuel cell system, from an output at the upper voltage limit of the fuel cell stack. However, operating the fuel cell stack at a minimum voltage, when required amount of power generation of the fuel cell stack is zero, is known in the art in order to avoid high potential operation of stack which causes advance deterioration of the fuel cell stack. For example, Umayahara, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a fuel cell system in which, when the fuel cell stack has a required amount of power generation of zero (i.e., in a case of a low load such idle stop), the upper voltage limit of the fuel cell stack to operate the fuel cell stack is set at a voltage V1 below the open circuit voltage the fuel cell stack generate just enough electricity to be consumed for charge a battery and by auxiliary devices [Umayahara – par. 0005,0008-10,0048-50,0060-66; Figs. 3-5]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Umayahara to have modified the system of Lee wherein when the fuel cell stack has a required amount of power generation of zero, the controller limits an upper voltage limit of the fuel cell stack to operate the fuel cell stack at a net output, the net output of the fuel cell stack corresponding to a value obtained by subtracting an auxiliary equipment consumption output, which is an output consumed by high-voltage components constituting the fuel cell system, from an output at the upper voltage limit of the fuel cell stack in order to generate sufficient power generation at idle state for energy required to charge the battery when the SOC of battery is less than a preset level, to operate the COD heater and to operate the auxiliary equipment for supply of reactants to the fuel cell stack.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Lee teaches wherein when the state of charge of the battery is less than a preset level, the controller causes the battery to be charged with energy produced by the net output of the fuel cell stack; and when the state of charge of the battery is equal to or higher than the preset level, the controller controls the COD heater to generate an output corresponding to the net output of the fuel cell stack [Umayahara – pars. 0005,0008-10,0048-50,0060-66; Figs. 3-5].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ieda (US20030010487A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the COD heater is provided therein with an switch and a COD controller (inherent components of a COD heater) to comply with the output received from the controller, and the COD controller determines a duty value obtained by dividing the output received from the controller by a maximum output of the COD heater for the voltage of the fuel cell stack [par. 0041], but fails to teach wherein the switch is an IGBT. However, Ieda, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a system in which an electric heater 14 for heating a coolant in a fuel cell system which is controlled via six IGBTs and a controller 222 that control the power supply to the heater as a well-known device in the art [Ieda – pars. 0023,0040; Figs. 1,4]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Ueda to have modified the COD heater of Lee wherein the COD heater is provided therein with an IGBT and a COD controller to comply with the output received from the controller; and the COD controller determines a duty value obtained by dividing the output received from the controller by a maximum output of the COD heater for the voltage of the fuel cell stack.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neiss (US20040068359A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee fails to disclose wherein the controller predicts a time when a vehicle enters a downhill road based on information received from a GPS device that searches for a driving route of the vehicle. However, Neiss, from a similar problem solving area of predicting a time when a vehicle enters a terrain based on information received from a GPS device that searches for a driving route of the vehicle, wherein the terrain may include a downhill road in order to control speed of the vehicle and maximize fuel savings [Neiss – pars. 0031; Figs. 1-2]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Neiss to have modified the system of Lee wherein the controller predicts a time when a vehicle enters a downhill road based on information received from a GPS device that searches for a driving route of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 6-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Neiss, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Park (US20190165398A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lee fails to disclose wherein the controller calculates regenerative power energy to be generated during downhill driving and rechargeable energy on the state of charge of the battery; and the controller controls the COD heater to be turned off when the regenerative power energy is less than a sum of the rechargeable energy and auxiliary equipment consumption energy. However, Park, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a fuel cell system in which a controller is configured to calculate regenerative power energy to be generated during downhill driving and rechargeable energy on the state of charge of the battery, and the controller controls the COD heater to be turned off when the regenerative power energy is less than a sum of the rechargeable energy and auxiliary equipment consumption energy so that the regenerative power energy can be used to charge the battery [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Park to have further modified the system of Lee wherein the controller calculates regenerative power energy to be generated during downhill driving and rechargeable energy on the state of charge of the battery; and the controller controls the COD heater to be turned off when the regenerative power energy is less than a sum of the rechargeable energy and auxiliary equipment consumption energy in order to use the regenerative power energy to charge the battery.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein when the regenerative power energy is equal to or greater than the sum of the rechargeable energy and the auxiliary equipment consumption energy, the controller determines whether to turn on the COD heater before the vehicle enters the downhill road based on a comparison between values obtained by subtracting the sum of the rechargeable energy and the auxiliary equipment consumption energy from COD consumption energy consumable by the COD heater and the regenerative power energy while the vehicle travels on the downhill road. However, Park teaches that the controller configures the COD heater to operate during the vehicle traveling downhill if the regenerative power energy is equal to or greater than the sum of rechargeable energy and the auxiliary equipment consumption energy based on a comparison of the calculated regenerative power energy and the calculated auxiliary equipment consumption energy [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the system of Lee wherein when the regenerative power energy is equal to or greater than the sum of the rechargeable energy and the auxiliary equipment consumption energy, the controller determines whether to turn on the COD heater before the vehicle enters the downhill road based on a comparison between values obtained by subtracting the sum of the rechargeable energy and the auxiliary equipment consumption energy from COD consumption energy consumable by the COD heater and the regenerative power energy while the vehicle travels on the downhill road.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lee teaches wherein the controller controls the COD heater to be turned on when the COD consumption energy is less than a value obtained by subtracting the sum of the rechargeable energy and the auxiliary equipment consumption energy from the regenerative power energy [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055], but fails to teach that the COD heater is turned on before the vehicle enters the downhill road. However, since Lee, as modified by Neiss allows the controller to predict a time when the vehicle enters a downhill road to control speed of the vehicle and maximize fuel savings [Neiss – pars. 0031; Figs. 1-2] and Park teaches controlling the COD heater operation to prevent power charged to the battery from being wasted unnecessarily, and thereby improving driving efficiency [Park – par. 0024], before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the system of Lee wherein the COD heater is turned on before the vehicle enters the downhill road to maximize the fuel savings and to prevent power charged to the battery from being wasted unnecessarily, and thereby improving driving efficiency.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lee teaches wherein the controller controls the COD heater to consume COD pre-consumption energy, which is a value obtained by subtracting a sum of the rechargeable energy, the auxiliary equipment consumption energy, and the COD consumption energy from the regenerative power energy, before the vehicle enters the downhill road [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055] and [Neiss – pars. 0031; Figs. 1-2].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lee fails to teach wherein after the vehicle enters the downhill road, the controller compares a regenerative power output with a maximum output of the COD heater to determine an ON/OFF time of the COD heater such that the state of charge of the battery does not reach a limit. However, Park, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a fuel cell system in which a controller is configured to calculate regenerative power energy to be generated during downhill driving and rechargeable energy on the state of charge of the battery, and the controller controls the COD heater to be turned off when the regenerative power energy is less than a sum of the rechargeable energy and auxiliary equipment consumption energy so that the regenerative power energy can be used to charge the battery [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Park to have further modified the system of Lee wherein after the vehicle enters the downhill road, the controller compares a regenerative power output with a maximum output of the COD heater to determine an ON/OFF time of the COD heater such that the state of charge of the battery does not reach a limit.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lee teaches wherein when the COD heater is turned on and the regenerative power output exceeds the maximum output of the COD heater before the vehicle enters the downhill road, the controller controls the COD heater to be operated at a maximum output [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Lee teaches wherein when the COD heater is turned on and the regenerative power output is less than or equal to the maximum output of the COD heater before the vehicle enters the downhill road, the controller controls the COD heater to be turned off [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Lee teaches wherein when the COD heater is turned off and the regenerative power output exceeds the maximum output of the COD heater when the vehicle enters the downhill road, the controller controls the COD heater to be turned on [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055], but fails to teach that the COD heater is turned on before the vehicle enters the downhill road. However, since Lee, as modified by Neiss allows the controller to predict a time when the vehicle enters a downhill road to control speed of the vehicle and maximize fuel savings [Neiss – pars. 0031; Figs. 1-2] and Park teaches controlling the COD heater operation to prevent power charged to the battery from being wasted unnecessarily, and thereby improving driving efficiency [Park – par. 0024], before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the system of Lee wherein the COD heater is turned on before the vehicle enters the downhill road to maximize the fuel savings and to prevent power charged to the battery from being wasted unnecessarily, and thereby improving driving efficiency.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Lee teaches wherein when the COD heater is turned off and the regenerative power output is less than or equal to the maximum output of the COD heater before the vehicle enters the downhill road, the controller controls the COD heater to be turned off [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Lee teaches wherein when the state of charge of the battery reaches the limit by regenerative braking of the vehicle, the controller controls the COD heater such that its output is equal to the regenerative power output [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Lee teaches wherein the controller controls the COD heater to be turned off when the vehicle exits the downhill road [Park – pars. 0042-44,0055].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee, as modified by Neiss and Park, teaches wherein the controller controls the COD heater to be turned on at a time that precedes a time when the vehicle is expected to enter the downhill road by a preceding time for COD operating, but fails to teach the time is obtained by dividing the COD pre-consumption energy by a maximum output of the COD heater.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751