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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 have been currently amended. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are currently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments with respect to the Objections filed October 9th, 2025 have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) filed October 9th, 2025 have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore, U.S. Patent No. US 6107691 A in view of Bender et al., Pub. No. US2006/0250902 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gore and Bender, respectively.
As per Claims 1 and 11, Gore discloses a method and system comprising:
power distribution system in a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (e.g. see Col 5 Ln 37-41, Fig. 1) comprising:
a hydrogen fuel cell system (e.g. see Col 5 Ln 37-41, Fig. 1 – “Fuel Cell”) activated to supply direct current (e.g. see Fig 1 – “D.C.”) from hydrogen fuel cells (e.g. see Fig 1 – “Fuel Cell”) used to power the vehicle (e.g. see Fig 1 – “Locomotion Mode”);
a power bus for receiving the direct current from the hydrogen fuel cell (e.g. see Fig 1 – “Power Generation Bus 30”); and
an electrical port (e.g. see Fig 7 – “DC Electric Output Port”), the electrical port configured to receive a plug-in connection (e.g. see Fig 7 – “Jack-Type Connection”) connected to a charging station external to the vehicle (e.g. see Fig 4) for receiving the direct current from the power bus (e.g. see Fig 1 – “D.C. USE”), the direct current used to provide power to the charging station (e.g. see Fig 2,4,8).
Gore fails to explicitly disclose one or more switches connected in series with the power bus, the one or more switches activated to convey the direct current from the power bus to the plug-in connection. However, Bender teaches the above limitation (see at least 0022, “fuel cell”, 0089 “hydrogen”, 0111 “the series hybrid configuration from above and uses a fuel cell to generate electricity. The fuel cell replaces the engine 1 and the first motor/generator 2. In this variation, a fast energy storage device 8 and a battery 7 are connected to a power converter and controller 6. The power converter and controller 6 directs the flow of power between the fast energy storage device 8, the battery 7, and the second motor/generator 3. All the elements that store or use electricity (3, 7, and 8) may either source or sink electricity.”, 0115 “The power converter and controller 6 has a DC bus with one bus bar 18 at elevated potential and a second bus 19 at a common potential. An H-bridge leg comprises two switches 29 connected in series where the pair of switches 29 connect the two bus bars of the DC bus 18, 19 and the point between the switches connects to one phase leg of the connected AC device.”, also see Figure 6 “power converter/controller” connected to “plug/disconnect”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gore and include switches in series with a bus as taught by Bender with a reasonable expectation of success since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore in view of Bender as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Weber, Pub. No. US20170246962 A1, hereinafter referred to as Weber.
As per Claims 3 and 13, Gore fails to particularly disclose wherein the plug-in connection connected to the electrical port is a slow charge plug used for providing a charge to a vehicle high voltage energy storage system.
However, Weber teaches wherein the plug-in connection (e.g. see Paragraph 0018 – “charge connector”) connected to the electrical port (e.g. see Paragraph 0018 – “charge port”) is a slow charge plug (e.g. see Paragraph 0012 – “slow charging using an electrical cable plug”) used for providing a charge (e.g. see Paragraph 0018 – “recharge”) to a vehicle high voltage energy storage system (e.g. see Paragraph 0015 – “the vehicle battery pack 124 may provide a high voltage”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Gore to incorporate the teachings of Weber which teaches wherein the plug-in connection connected to the electrical port is a slow charge plug used for providing a charge to a vehicle high voltage energy storage system since they are both directed to vehicle charging and power systems and incorporation of the teachings of Weber would allow the charging stations to meet the specifications of multiple interface types (Weber, e.g. Paragraph 0012).
Claims 4-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore in view of Bender as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of McArthur, Pub. No. US 20040110044 A1, hereinafter referred to as McArthur.
As per Claims 4 and 14, Gore fails to particularly disclose further comprising: a processor coupled to memory having instructions which, when read by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a user request signal to export power from the vehicle; and activate the fuel cell system to generate said direct current in response to the user request signal.
However, McArthur teaches further comprising: a processor (e.g. see Fig 3 – “on-board computer”) coupled to memory (e.g. see Paragraph 0094 – “storing the data and information”) having instructions (e.g. see Paragraph 0081-84 – “steps”) which, when read by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive a user request signal to export power from the vehicle (e.g. see Fig 3 – Step 322); and
activate the fuel cell system to generate said direct current in response to the user request signal (e.g. see Fig 3 – Step 330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Gore to incorporate the teachings of McArthur which teaches further comprising: a processor coupled to memory having instructions which, when read by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a user request signal to export power from the vehicle; and activate the fuel cell system to generate said direct current in response to the user request signal since they are both directed to power generation from fuel cell vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of McArthur would more readily enable pricing of electricity produced from the fuel cell vehicles to be varied on short time scales (McArthur, e.g. Paragraph 0010).
As per Claims 5 and 15, Gore fails to particularly disclose wherein the direct current generated is of a level and an associated duration corresponding to a predetermined amount of power in response to the user request signal.
However, McArthur teaches wherein the direct current generated is of a level (e.g. see Paragraph 109 – “power output”) and an associated duration (e.g. see Paragraph 109 – “certain period of time”) corresponding to a predetermined amount of power (e.g. see Paragraph 109 – “1 megawatt – 1.5 megawatts”) in response to the user request signal (e.g. see Fig 3 – 322).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Gore to incorporate the teachings of McArthur which teaches wherein the direct current generated is of a level and an associated duration corresponding to a predetermined amount of power in response to the user request signal since they are both directed to power generation from fuel cell vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of McArthur would more readily enable pricing of electricity produced from the fuel cell vehicles to be varied on short time scales (McArthur, e.g. Paragraph 0010).
As per Claims 6-7 and 16-17, Gore fails to disclose a DC-to-DC converter for boosting the generated direct current to a greater level than a level produced by the hydrogen fuel cell.
However, Bender discloses the above limitation (see at least 0121-0122, “a buck/boost converters perform DC to DC voltage conversion….”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Gore and include a buck/boost converter as taught by Bender with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides it provides greater voltage when called upon by the system (0016).
As per Claims 8 and 18, Gore fails to particularly disclose wherein the processor device is further configured to: transmit a handshake message via the power bus to the ground side charging station; wherein said power bus comprises a controller interfacing with the ground side charging station; and wherein the handshake message comprises data representing the configuration of the plug-in charger.
However, McArthur teaches wherein the processor device (McArthur e.g. see Paragraph 0093 – “computer”) is further configured to:
transmit a handshake message via the power bus to the ground side charging station (McArthur e.g. see Fig 4 – “encrypted ESP request”);
wherein said power bus comprises a controller interfacing with the ground side charging station (McArthur e.g. see Paragraph 0040 – “onboard computer controller”);
and wherein the handshake message comprises data representing the configuration of the plug-in charger (McArthur e.g. see Fig 4 – 524 “information and permission”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Gore to incorporate the teachings of McArthur which teaches wherein the processor device is further configured to: transmit a handshake message via the power bus to the ground side charging station; wherein said power bus comprises a controller interfacing with the ground side charging station; and wherein the handshake message comprises data representing the configuration of the plug-in charger since they are both directed to power generation from fuel cell vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of McArthur would more readily enable pricing of electricity produced from the fuel cell vehicles to be varied on short time scales (McArthur, e.g. Paragraph 0010).
As per Claims 9 and 19, Gore fails to particularly disclose wherein the instructions, when read by the processor device, further cause the processor to: communicate messages with an on-board charge controller interfacing with the ground side charging station, including receiving messages that include a power amount, wherein, in response to receiving the power amount, the processor device further configures the hydrogen fuel cell system, and power bus to supply said direct current at a specific level for a pre- determined duration of time commensurate with the power amount.
However, McArthur teaches wherein the instructions, when read by the processor device (McArthur e.g. see Paragraph 0093 – “computer”), further cause the processor to: communicate messages (McArthur e.g. see Fig 5 – “Reconciliation”) with an on-board charge controller interfacing with the ground side charging station (McArthur e.g. see Fig 5 – “onboard processor”), including receiving messages that include a power amount (McArthur e.g. see Fig 5), wherein, in response to receiving the power amount, the processor device further configures the hydrogen fuel cell system, and power bus to supply said direct current at a specific level (McArthur e.g. see Paragraph 109 – “1 megawatt – 1.5 megawatts”) for a pre- determined duration of time commensurate with the power amount (McArthur e.g. see Paragraph 109 – “certain period of time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Gore to incorporate the teachings of McArthur which teaches wherein the instructions, when read by the processor device, further cause the processor to: communicate messages with an on-board charge controller interfacing with the ground side charging station, including receiving messages that include a power amount, wherein, in response to receiving the power amount, the processor device further configures the hydrogen fuel cell system, and power bus to supply said direct current at a specific level for a pre- determined duration of time commensurate with the power amount since they are both directed to power generation from fuel cell vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of McArthur would more readily enable pricing of electricity produced from the fuel cell vehicles to be varied on short time scales (McArthur, e.g. Paragraph 0010).
As per Claims 10 and 20, Gore further discloses further comprising: monitoring said power bus, using a current meter and a voltage meter operatively connected to said power bus, to ensure an accurate supply of power to the charging station. (Gore e.g. see Fig 11 - 167).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights