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 .
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.
Claims 4-10 are 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 4 recites the limitation "the correction value of the reference output required for restarting the power generation of the fuel cell." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the corrections value of the reference output required for stopping the power generation of the fuel cell.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitation "the ratio." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 the limitation "the data map." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taneoka (JP 2019068703, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Shigezumi et al. (US 2012/0015271).
Regarding Claim 1, Taneoka teaches a method for controlling a fuel cell of a fuel cell vehicle ([0001], [0050]-[0065]). Taneoka teaches that the method comprises the following steps:
determining a first (battery only), second (battery and fuel cell), or third (regenerative) drive mode (“determining a reference output”) from a first or second switching map, wherein the drive mode determination is required for either “stopping” power generation of the fuel cell (e.g. a transition from the second to first drive mode stops the fuel cel) or “restarting” power generation of the fuel cell (e.g. a transition from the first to second or third to second restarts the fuel cell in the instance(s) where power generation by the fuel cell has been previously stopped, wherein it is noted that Taneoka discloses a plurality of exemplary time periods, such as time t2 to time t3, where the fuel cell is being started again after being stopped as opposed to being started for the first time), wherein the drive mode determination is made, at least in part, according to a required driving force (“required output”) of the vehicle ([0051], [0060]-[0061], [0065]-[0072]),
correcting the driving mode (“correcting the reference output”) based, at least in part, on an estimated driving environment which considers at least vehicle speed and/or driving road gradient (“vehicle driving condition information”), wherein it is noted that the drive mode determination is made, at least in part, on the estimated driving environment which itself is repeatedly estimated at predetermined timing cycles ([0057], [0060]), and
restarting or stopping power generation of the fuel cell, as previously described, based on the corrected driving mode (as previously described, the drive mode determination is made, at least in part, on the estimated driving environment which itself is repeatedly estimated at predetermined timing cycles) ([0057], [0060], [0065]-[0072]).
Taneoka does not explicitly teach that the drive mode correcting is also based on the degree of degradation of the fuel cell.
However, Shigezumi teaches a fuel cell system (Abstract). Shigezumi teaches that a controller of the fuel cell system controls power generation output of the fuel cell and determines a degree of degradation of the fuel cell of the system ([0012]-[0013]). Shigezumi teaches that upon determination of degradation, a correction is executed to decrease the power generation output such that the system is operated with a reduced output ([0013]). Shigezumi teaches that by executing such a correction based on fuel cell degradation, further advance of such degradation is restrained ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the drive mode correcting of Taneoka is also based on the degree of degradation of the fuel cell, as taught by Shigezumi, given that correcting the drive mode in such a manner would also help restrain the further advance of fuel cell degradation, thereby enhancing the durability and lifespan of the fuel cell.
Regarding Claim 2, Taneoka, as modified by Shigezumi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the drive mode determination is based on a first or second switching map (either of which is a “first data map”), wherein the switching map is prepared in advance according to the required driving force of the vehicle ([0051], [0060]-[0061], [0065]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 11, Taneoka, as modified by Shigezumi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, Taneoka teaches that the corrected reference output is initialized when the corrected reference output is out of a preset reference range (i.e. the drive mode correction is initialized when the current drive mode is out of the present condition ranges suitable for a the given drive mode) ([0051], [0060]-[0061], [0065]-[0072]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taneoka (JP 2019068703, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Shigezumi et al. (US 2012/0015271) and Jeong et al (KR 1020160142551, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 3, Taneoka, as modified by Shigezumi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the drive mode correcting comprises determining a correction value based on an estimated driving environment which considers at least vehicle speed and/or driving road gradient, and the degree of degradation of the fuel cell, wherein the method then comprises correcting driving mode based on the determined correction value.
Taneoka, as modifIed by Shigezumi, does not explicitly teach that the correction value determining is also based on vehicle altitude and coolant temperature.
However, Jeong teaches a method for controlling a fuel cell system ([0001]). Jeong teaches that the fuel cell system, at high altitudes, is controlled to increase the amount of oxygen supplied to a fuel cell system of the system, given that increased driving altitude decreases the amount of oxidant available to the system which can deteriorate performance ([0023]-[0024]). Jeong further teaches that coolant temperature is also taken into account when changing operating conditions based on vehicle altitude order to help prevent dry-out phenomenon and reductions to system performance ([0029]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the correction value determining is also based on vehicle altitude and coolant temperature, as taught by Jeong, given that such control would help prevent performance deterioration due to oxidant variations as a result of altitude changes, and help prevent dry-out phenomenon and reductions to system performance.
Regarding Claim 4, Taneoka, as modified by Shigezumi and Jeong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
Furthermore, and as previously described (See Claim 1), a correction value of the drive mode required for restarting power generation and a correction value of the drive mode required for stopping power generation are “individually determined” given that the estimated driving environment calculations separately set the conditions needed for the first, second, or third drive mode to be selected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are 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 (and written so as to overcome all relevant rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph).
Claim 5 further limits the method of Claim 4 by requiring that the correction value of the reference output required for restarting power generation of the fuel cell is determined based on the instantly claimed Equation 1.
Taneoka, as modified by Shigezumi and Jeong, neither teach nor suggest the instantly claimed Equation 1. At best, while said prior art reference may use parameters such as vehicle altitude, coolant temperature, and degree of fuel cell degradation into account from a control perspective, said prior art references simply do not apply said parameters to a specific equation, let alone the instantly claimed Equation 1.
Claims 9-10 are 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 (and written so as to overcome all relevant rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph).
Claim 9 further limits the method of Claim 4 by requiring that the correction value of the reference output required for stopping power generation of the fuel cell is determined based on the instantly claimed Equation 2.
Taneoka, as modified by Shigezumi and Jeong, neither teach nor suggest the instantly claimed Equation 2. At best, while said prior art reference may use parameters such as vehicle altitude, coolant temperature, and degree of fuel cell degradation into account from a control perspective, said prior art references simply do not apply said parameters to a specific equation, let alone the instantly claimed Equation 2.
Claims 12-16 are 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 (and written so as to overcome all relevant rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph).
Claim 12 further limits the method of Claim 1 by requiring that the restarting or stopping the power generation of the fuel cell comprise: determining whether it is required to restart or stop the power generation of the fuel cell according to a driving state of the fuel cell and a difference between the required output of the vehicle and the corrected reference output; calculating the instantly claimed integral value; and restarting or stopping the power generation of the fuel cell based on the calculated integral value.
Taneoka, as modified by Shigezumi and Jeong, neither teach nor suggest the instantly claimed method steps. While said prior art references, in combination, suggest control steps that determine whether power generation of the fuel cell is restarted or stopped, said references neither teach nor suggests the instantly claimed determining, calculating, and restarting or stopping steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728