DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application filed 3/08/2023, with claims 1-13 pending.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/08/2023 and 3/13/2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the line types, labeling, and symbols are blurred and difficult to examine. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al., US 2018/0054151 hereinafter “Matsumoto” in view of Meyer et al., US2023/0264572 hereinafter “Meyer” and further view of Zhou MingWang,
CN 2022/11059001 hereinafter Zhou.
Claim 1. Matsumoto teaches a vehicle comprising:
a DC converter having a first end connected to a fuel cell, a second end connected to a high-voltage battery, and at least one switching element connected between the first end and the second end (fig. 1 best illustrates the arrangement between the elements of the DC converter, high-voltage battery and switching elements);
a fuel cell control unit which controls an activation state of a running command for start of the fuel cell based on an on-off state of vehicle start ([0056]-[0060] describes scenario that reads on this element as such—“The fuel cell controller 10 outputs respective commands to operate the multi-phase converter 5 and the DC/DC converter 8 to the fuel cell DC/DC converter controller 4 and the battery DC/DC converter controller 7 on the basis of the output current value and the output voltage value from the fuel cell stack 6 that are input from the respective sensors 61 and 62 and the motor rotation speed and the motor torque of the drive motor 2 that are input from the respective detectors 21 and 22.”).
Matsumoto teaches an overall control sequence of the electric power adjustment system in relationship to the converter controllers that controls at least the fuel cell and the high-voltage battery. Yet, Matsumoto is silent on teaching an initial start sequence.
Yet, Meyer teaches a converter controller which controls a running state of the DC converter according to an initial start sequence, a shutdown sequence, or a restart sequence for the fuel cell based on the activation state of the running command ([0023] reads on this element as such—“the fuel cell stack 106 is generally required to go through a startup process before the fuel cell stack 106 may resume in generating energy for the vehicle 109. The startup process may take up, for example, a few seconds.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Matsumoto teaches the components arranged as claimed and Meyer teaches the concept of startup, restart and shutdown as claimed; however, both are silent on the on/off state of the vehicle. Yet, Zhou teaches the on/off state of the vehicle (on pg. 7, para. 7 along with pg. 11, second para. from the last para. read on the state of the vehicle as such—“the driver's power-on signal may be a signal triggered when the driver operates the vehicle to power on. For example, for a vehicle not equipped with a very simple power-on function, when the vehicle is powered down, the driver performs a power-on process initiated by pressing a brake button, thereby transmitting a power-on signal to the CCU. Or, for a vehicle configured with a very simple power-on function, when the vehicle is powered down, the driver performs a power-on process of stepping on the brake, thereby transmitting a power-on signal to the CCU. After receiving the power-on signal of the driver, the CCU may initialize each part of the vehicle to prepare for subsequent power-on control of the power battery system. For example, a battery management system (Battery Management System, BMS), a fuel control unit (Fuel Control Unit, FCU), etc. of the vehicle may be controlled to wake up and self-check to complete initialization”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhou with the system of Matsumoto in view of Meyer because such combination would provide a power-on starting method and device for a vehicle (see Abstract, Zhou).
Claim 2. Matsumoto, Meyer and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Matsumoto teaches the component arranged as claimed and Meyer teaches the startup, restart and shutdown as claim; however, both are silent on on/off state of the vehicle. Yet, Zhou teaches the on/off state of the vehicle wherein when the vehicle start is switched from the off state to the on state, the fuel cell control unit activates the running command so that the fuel cell starts (pg. 2, para. 4 along with pg. 11, second para. from last para. reads on this element as such—“after receiving a power-on signal of a driver, acquiring the power battery electric quantity of the vehicle, and judging whether the power battery electric quantity is larger than a first threshold value or not; the first threshold value is not smaller than a basic electric quantity threshold value, and the basic electric quantity threshold value is an electric quantity threshold value capable of meeting the power consumption requirements of high-low voltage accessories of a vehicle and the starting of a fuel cell…The controller 5 may be a CCU in the vehicle or a controller dedicated to controlling power on/off of the vehicle, or the like. The controller 5 may include, but is not limited to, a processor 50, a memory 51 . It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that fig. 5 is merely an example of the controller 5 and is not meant to be limiting of the controller 5, and may include more or fewer components than shown, or may combine certain components, or different components, e.g., the controller may further include input-output devices, network access devices, buses, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhou with the system of Matsumoto in view of Meyer because such combination would provide a power-on starting method and device for a vehicle (see Abstract, Zhou).
Claim 3. Matsumoto, Meyer and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Matsumoto teaches the component arranged as claimed and Meyer teaches the startup, restart and shutdown as claim; however, both are silent on on/off state of the vehicle. Yet, Zhou teaches wherein when the vehicle start is switched from the on state to the off state, the fuel cell control unit deactivates the running command so that the fuel cell is shut down (pg. 11, second para. from last para. reads on this element as such—“The controller 5 may be a CCU in the vehicle or a controller dedicated to controlling power on/off of the vehicle, or the like. The controller 5 may include, but is not limited to, a processor 50, a memory 51 . It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that fig. 5 is merely an example of the controller 5 and is not meant to be limiting of the controller 5, and may include more or fewer components than shown, or may combine certain components, or different components, e.g., the controller may further include input-output devices, network access devices, buses, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhou with the system of Matsumoto in view of Meyer because such combination would provide a power-on starting method and device for a vehicle (see Abstract, Zhou).
Claim 4. Matsumoto, Meyer and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Matsumoto teaches the component arranged as claimed and Meyer teaches the startup, restart and shutdown as claim; however, both are silent on on/off state of the vehicle. Yet, Zhou teaches wherein when the vehicle start is switched back to the on state after having been switched from the on state to the off state, the fuel cell control unit deactivates and then reactivates the running command so that the fuel cell is restarted (pg. 7, para. 7 along pg. 11, second para. from last para. with the driver's power-on signal may be a signal triggered when the driver operates the vehicle to power on. For example, for a vehicle not equipped with a very simple power-on function, when the vehicle is powered down, the driver performs a power-on process initiated by pressing a brake button, thereby transmitting a power-on signal to the CCU. Or, for a vehicle configured with a very simple power-on function, when the vehicle is powered down, the driver performs a power-on process of stepping on the brake, thereby transmitting a power-on signal to the CCU.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhou with the system of Matsumoto in view of Meyer because such combination would provide a power-on starting method and device for a vehicle (see Abstract, Zhou).
Claim 5. Matsumoto, Meyer and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1; however, Matsumoto does not teaches the startup process. Yet, Meyer teaches wherein the running state of the DC converter includes an initial check state, a standby state, a pre-active state, and an active state ([0023] teaches scenario that reads on this element as such—“However, the fuel cell stack 106 is generally required to go through a startup process before the fuel cell stack 106 may resume in generating energy for the vehicle 109. The startup process may take up, for example, a few seconds. In moments where it is unnecessary for the fuel cell stack 106 to generate power for a short period of time, the controller 102 may control the fuel cell stack 106 to enter into the ZGP mode. In ZGP mode, the fuel cell stack 106 does not provide energy or voltage for a time period that does not exceed a predetermined amount of time (e.g., one to two minutes). While in the ZGP mode, the fuel cell stack 106 is required to be started upon expiration of the predetermined amount of time to prevent the fuel cell stack 106 from being damaged. In addition, the fuel cell stack 106 may exit from the ZGP mode quickly to resume producing power for the vehicle 109.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Claim 6. Matsumoto in view of Meyer the vehicle according to claim 5; however, Matsumoto does not teaches startup process. Yet, Meyer wherein when the running command is activated, the converter controller causes transition of the running state of the DC converter from the initial check state to the standby state, then the pre-active state, and then the active state, according to the initial start sequence (Fig. 2 illustrates a flowchart that reads on this, while [0023] teaches scenario that reads on this element as such—“However, the fuel cell stack 106 is generally required to go through a startup process before the fuel cell stack 106 may resume in generating energy for the vehicle 109. The startup process may take up, for example, a few seconds. In moments where it is unnecessary for the fuel cell stack 106 to generate power for a short period of time, the controller 102 may control the fuel cell stack 106 to enter into the ZGP mode. In ZGP mode, the fuel cell stack 106 does not provide energy or voltage for a time period that does not exceed a predetermined amount of time (e.g., one to two minutes). While in the ZGP mode, the fuel cell stack 106 is required to be started upon expiration of the predetermined amount of time to prevent the fuel cell stack 106 from being damaged. In addition, the fuel cell stack 106 may exit from the ZGP mode quickly to resume producing power for the vehicle 109.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Claim 7. Matsumoto in view of Meyer the vehicle according to claim 5; however, Matsumoto does not teaches startup process. Yet, Meyer teaches wherein when the running command is deactivated, the converter controller causes transition of the running state of the DC converter from the active state to the standby state according to the shutdown sequence ([0013]-[0014]—“For example, the vehicle system may place the fuel cell stack in a fuel cell shutdown mode or in a zero gross power (ZGP) mode. If the system commands the fuel cell (or fuel cell stack) to enter into the fuel cell shutdown mode and driver demand power significantly increases, the system may have to restart the fuel cell before power from the fuel cell can be used to support engine propulsion.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Claim 8. Matsumoto in view of Meyer the vehicle according to claim 5; however, Matsumoto does not teaches startup process. Yet Meyer wherein when the deactivated running command is reactivated, the converter controller causes transition of the running state of the DC converter from the standby state to the pre-active state and then to the active state, according to the restart sequence ([0004] along with [0022]-[0024]—“In the temporary zero gross power mode, voltage of the fuel cell stack decreases, and the fuel cell is required to be restarted within one to two minutes to prevent fuel cell damage. The system or vehicle may rapidly exit this mode and begin producing power when power demands on the vehicle are detected. When the fuel cell remains in a shutdown state indefinitely, the system initiates and executes a startup process before the fuel cell can begin producing power. The startup process can take up to a few seconds which may not be optimal under certain vehicle operating conditions.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Claim 9. Matsumoto, Meyer and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 and Meyer further teaches, wherein when the vehicle start is switched from the off state to the on state, the converter controller transmits a communication ready state signal to the fuel cell control unit, and wherein the fuel cell control unit transmits the running command to the converter controller based on the communication ready state signal ([0020] along with [0022] teaches concept of communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Claim 10. Matsumoto in view of Meyer teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 and Matsumoto further teaches, wherein the fuel cell control unit outputs an output current target value for the DC converter together with output of the running command ([0056] along with [0058] and [0095] reads on the element as such—“The fuel cell controller 10 outputs respective commands to operate the multi-phase converter 5 and the DC/DC converter 8 to the fuel cell DC/DC converter controller 4 and the battery DC/DC converter controller 7 on the basis of the output current value and the output voltage value from the fuel cell stack 6 that are input from the respective sensors 61 and 62 and the motor rotation speed and the motor torque of the drive motor 2 that are input from the respective detectors 21 and 22.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Claim 11. Matsumoto in view of Meyer teaches the vehicle according to claim 10 and Matsumoto further teaches, wherein when the running command is activated, the converter controller controls power transfer between the fuel cell and the high-voltage battery by switching the at least one switching element based on the output current target value ([0059]-[0068] read on this element as such—“voltage ratio (output voltage/input voltage) of the multi-phase converter 5 becomes a command value from the fuel cell controller 10….The estimated wet/dry state of the fuel cell stack 6 is output to the voltage control unit 16 for a step-up control of the output voltage from the fuel cell stack 6 and a DC link control (control for linking (synchronizing) the output voltage from the DC/DC converter 5 and the output voltage from the DC/DC converter 8) of the output voltage from the battery 20”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Claim 12. Matsumoto in view of Meyer teaches the vehicle according to claim 11 and Matsumoto further teaches, wherein when the at least one switching element is switched, the converter controller transmits a DC transformation start signal for the DC converter to the fuel cell control unit ([0159] along with [0164] reads on this element as such—“Next, the fuel cell DC/DC converter controller 4 uses the step-up DUTY cycle and the step-down DUTY cycle determined at Steps S807 and S808 to convert and generate PWM signals that are to be output to the respective switching elements 51U to 52W and 53U to 53W (Step S809). Then, the fuel cell DC/DC converter controller 4 outputs these PWM signals to the corresponding switching elements 51U to 52W and 53U to 53W, and terminates this FC DC/DC converter control process.” and “the battery DC/DC converter controller 7 uses the step-up DUTY cycle and the step-down DUTY cycle determined at Steps S904 and S905 to convert and generate a PWM signal that is to be output to the switching element 81 (Step S906). Then, the battery DC/DC converter controller 7 outputs this PWM signal to the switching element 81, and terminates this battery DC/DC converter control process.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Claim 13. Matsumoto in view of Meyer teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 and Matsumoto further teaches, wherein the at least one switching element is connected to the fuel cell through an inductor ([0039] and [0052] both read on this element as such “The reactor…has one end connected to the output terminal on a positive electrode side of the battery 20 and the other end connected to one end between the switching element…and the rectifier diode…and one end between the switching element…and the reflux diode…. The other end between the switching element…and the rectifier diode… is connected to the input terminal on the positive electrode side of the drive inverter 3. The other end between the switching element…and the reflux diode…is connected to the output terminal on a negative electrode side of the battery 20 and the input terminal on the negative electrode side of the drive inverter 3.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Meyer with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide energy to operate a fuel cell during various power demand events (see [0002], Meyer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 - 5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/A.D.T/ /RUSSELL FREJD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661