DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figure 1 is objected to because the drawings lack legends which are deemed to be necessary, or the provided legends in the drawings are illegible. According to 37 CFR 1.84(o), suitable legends may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.
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 § 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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yokoo US PGPUB 2022/0314809.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Yokoo discloses a fuel cell vehicle [fig. 4, 30] comprising:
a fuel cell stack and a battery [fig. 4, batteries 3 & 4 and fuel cells 13 & 14; pars. 24-25];
a drive motor configured to drive the vehicle through electrical energy of the fuel cell stack or the battery [fig. 4, motors 1 and 2 are powered by all of batteries 3 and 4 and fuel cells 13 and 14], and to generate electric power through regenerative braking during braking [par. 25]; and
a controller configured to set a limit of a regenerative braking output of a drive motor upon braking of the vehicle [par. 22 & 25; BMS 7 controls the charging of the battery packs to maintain batteries within a certain SOC window, such that regenerating braking output (charging) to one battery can be prevented (a limit) and provided to another instead or limited all the way (fig. 2, ratio of SOC to SOCmax greater than 1 results in “No regenerative braking”], wherein the controller sets the limit of regenerative braking output based on a driving environment factor in an exterior of the vehicle [par. 21 & 23; after “descending a long hill” braking can be limited if the batteries are charged too high (fig. 2, “no regenerative braking”) and torque (including braking torque) can be controlled according to the incline of the vehicle (par. 6 & 21)], a vehicle manipulation factor of a vehicle driver [par. 28; the driver’s use of the accelerator and brake pedals can be used to provide input regarding required torque], and a vehicle driving factor as to a driving state of a vehicle part comprising the fuel cell stack and the battery [par. 25; the entire state of the energy system (batteries and fuel cells) can be considered (“in coordination”), thus a vehicle driving factor].
Regarding claim 14, the method steps disclosed therein would have been are deemed as being inherent in the assembly and operation of the prior art reference(s) applied above, since the prior art of record herein is construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements recited in the method claim, as pointed out in the above rejection of claim 1. The claim is accordingly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, Yokoo discloses wherein the vehicle environment factor comprises an inclination of a road [pars. 21 & 23], the controller reduces the regenerative braking output limit of the drive motor as a downhill inclination of the road increases [fig. 2; pars. 6, 21 & 23].
Regarding claim 3, Yokoo discloses wherein the vehicle manipulation factor comprises a depth variation of a brake pedal or a depth variation of an accelerator pedal, and the controller reduces the regenerative braking output limit of the drive motor as the depth variation of the brake pedal or the depth variation of the accelerator pedal increases [par. 28; the driver’s use of the accelerator and brake pedals can be used to provide input regarding required torque; accelerator and brake pedals send depth of pedal signals to control their respective systems].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13 and 15 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.
With respect to claim 4, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the vehicle driving factor comprises an output consumption amount of a fuel cell balance of plant (BoP), and the controller reduces the regenerative braking output limit of the drive motor as the output consumption amount of the fuel cell BoP increases” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the controller calculates a reference regenerative braking output limit according to a state of charge (SOC) of the battery, and sets the regenerative braking output limit of the drive motor by reflecting the driving environment factor, the vehicle manipulation factor, and the vehicle driving factor in the reference regenerative braking output limit through an expression as follows: Z = X - di*D + (ai*Ai + a2*A2 + a3*A3), where Z is a regenerative braking output limit; X is a reference regenerative braking output limit; D is an amount of electric power generated through the fuel cell stack; Ai is a driving environment factor; A2 is a vehicle manipulation factor; A3 is a vehicle driving factor; and ai, a2, a3, and di are constants” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the controller controls the regenerative braking output of the drive motor in accordance with the set regenerative braking output limit upon beginning of regenerative braking, and again sets the regenerative braking output limit based on a difference between the regenerative braking output limit and a regenerative output of the drive motor after beginning of regenerative braking” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 6.
Claims 7-13, being dependent on claim 6, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 6.
With respect to claim 15, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein setting the limit of the regenerative braking output comprises: calculating a reference regenerative braking out limit according to a state of charge (SOC) of the battery; calculating, by the controller, an amount of electric power generated in the fuel cell stack; calculating, by the controller, an offset based on the driving environment factor, the vehicle manipulation factor and the vehicle driving factor; and setting the regenerative braking output limit by performing an arithmetic operation based on the calculated reference regenerative braking output limit, the calculated amount of electric power generated in the fuel cell stack, and the calculated offset” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. US PGPUB 2021/0387545 discloses a hybrid fuel cell electric vehicle that adjusts regenerative braking based on the road environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights