DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application filed 4/06/2026, with claims 1-4 and 6-13 pending, and with claim 5 canceled.
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.
Drawings
The drawings of figures 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are objected to because of the aliased lines. Over all the drawings are blurry and the various line patterns are indistinguishable. The replacement sheets of the drawing dating April 6, 2026 appears that Applicant just enlarged the original drawings without address the aliased line issue. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. 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.
The drawing objection is being maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks, filed 4/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection for claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and a newly found prior art reference.
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 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al., US 2018/0054151 hereinafter “Matsumoto”
in view of A. D. Dwivedi, M. Mittal and D. Sengupta, “Comparative Analysis And Design Of DCDC Converter With An Approach Of Interfacing It With MCB,” 2020 First IEEE International Conference on Measurement, Instrumentation, Control and Automation (ICMICA), Kurukshetra, India, 2020, pp. 1-7 hereinafter “Dwivedi” 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 ([0044] and [0056]-[0060] describes 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…. The fuel cell stack 6 is connected to the drive motor 2 as the load of the electric power adjustment system 1 via the multi-phase converter 5 and the drive inverter 3. The fuel cell stack 6 is a lamination cell that generates electricity according to an electrical load, such as the drive motor 2, by receiving a supply of a cathode gas (an oxidant gas) and an anode gas (a fuel gas) from a cathode gas supplying/discharging device and an anode gas supplying/discharging device, which are not illustrated.”).
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 the terms initial start sequence.
Yet, Dwivedi 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, wherein the running state of the DC converter includes an initial check state, a standby state, a pre-active state, and an active state. (on pg. 5, col. 2-pg. 6 col. 1 reads on this element as such—“MCB States The applicative software shall manage the following ECU state:
1.INITIALIZATION 2.RUN (This state will have several sub-state corresponding to the Charging sequence) such as Standby, Pre-charge, Charge, Interrupt, Error, Derating 3.SHUTDOWN….C. DCDC States The applicative software shall manage the following ECU
state: 1.INITIALIZATION 2.RUN (This state will have several sub-state corresponding to the Charging sequence)such as Standby, Pre-charge, Charge, Interrupt, Error, Derating
3.SHUTDOWN”).
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 Dwivedi with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide various charging states of the DCDC converter (see Abstract, Dwivedi).
Matsumoto teaches the components arranged as claimed and Dwivedi 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 Dwivedi because such combination would provide a power-on starting method and device for a vehicle (see Abstract, Zhou).
Claim 2. Matsumoto, Dwivedi and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Matsumoto teaches the component arranged as claimed and Dwivedi 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 Dwivedi because such combination would provide a power-on starting method and device for a vehicle (see Abstract, Zhou).
Claim 3. Matsumoto, Dwivedi and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Matsumoto teaches the component arranged as claimed and Dwivedi 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 Dwivedi because such combination would provide a power-on starting method and device for a vehicle (see Abstract, Zhou).
Claim 4. Matsumoto, Dwivedi and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Matsumoto teaches the component arranged as claimed and Dwivedi 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 Dwivedi because such combination would provide a power-on starting method and device for a vehicle (see Abstract, Zhou).
Claim 6. Matsumoto, Dwivedi and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1; however, Matsumoto does not teach startup process. Yet, Dwivedi teaches 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 (On pg. 6, col. 1 Dwivedi teaches “2.RUN (This state will have several sub-state corresponding to the Charging sequence)such as Standby, Pre-charge, Charge, Interrupt, Error, Derating”. Dwivedi discusses the “on and off” state on pg. 3 col. 1-pg. 4, col. 2).
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 Dwivedi with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide various charging states of the DCDC converter (see Abstract, Dwivedi).
Claim 7. Matsumoto, Dwivedi and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1; however, Matsumoto does not teach startup process. Yet, Dwivedi 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 (On pg. 6, col. 1 Dwivedi teaches “2.RUN (This state will have several sub-state corresponding to the Charging sequence)such as Standby, Pre-charge, Charge, Interrupt, Error, Derating”. Dwivedi discusses the “on and off” state on pg. 3 col. 1-pg. 4, col. 2).
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 Dwivedi with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide various charging states of the DCDC converter (see Abstract, Dwivedi).
Claim 8. Matsumoto, Dwivedi and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1; however, Matsumoto does not teach startup process. Yet, Dwivedi 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 (On pg. 6, col. 1 Dwivedi teaches “2.RUN (This state will have several sub-state corresponding to the Charging sequence)such as Standby, Pre-charge, Charge, Interrupt, Error, Derating”. Dwivedi discusses the “on and off” state on pg. 3 col. 1-pg. 4, col. 2).
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 Dwivedi with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide various charging states of the DCDC converter (see Abstract, Dwivedi).
Claim 9. Matsumoto, Dwivedi and Zhou teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 and Dwivedi 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 (On pg. 6, col. 1 Dwivedi teaches “2.RUN (This state will have several sub-state corresponding to the Charging sequence)such as Standby, Pre-charge, Charge, Interrupt, Error, Derating”. Dwivedi discusses the “on and off” state on pg. 3 col. 1-pg. 4, col. 2).
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 Dwivedi with the system of Matsumoto because such combination would provide various charging states of the DCDC converter (see Abstract, Dwivedi).
Claim 10. Matsumoto, Dwivedi and Zhou 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.”).
Claim 11. Matsumoto 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”).
Claim 12. Matsumoto 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.”).
Claim 13. Matsumoto, Dwivedi and Zhou 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.”).
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/ Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights