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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “unit” of “a start control unit” and “a request determination unit” in claim 1, the “manual operation unit” of claims 2 and 4, and the “charging rate detection unit” of Claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In the case of Claims 1 and 6, see rejection under U.S.C. 112(b) below as the lack of structure in the specification renders the claim indefinite; there is no corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function with which to interpret the “unit”. The claim is thus interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), in the absence of structure in the specification, as any software, hardware, computer, or the like capable of performing the action.
By contrast, the “manual operation unit” of claims 2 and 4 are not indefinite as the specification does provide structure, in paragraph ([0039] “The EV traveling switch 31 is a manual operation switch (manual operation unit) by which a driver of the fuel cell vehicle 2 performs an instruction operation for causing the fuel cell vehicle 2 to travel in the EV traveling mode.” providing structure for the manual operation unit of claim 4 as a switch, and ([0042] “The drain button 37 is a manual operation button (manual operation unit) for the driver to perform an instruction operation for draining generated water stored in the fuel cell 3.”) providing structure for the manual operation unit of claim 2 as a button operated by the driver. In both cases, the “unit” is interpreted as a physical switch/button respectively in view of the structure within the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 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. The claims recite a "request determination unit" and "start control unit", which as explained above are being interpreted under U.S.C 112(f) to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function- however no structure is described in the specification. It is unclear whether these "request determination unit" and "start control unit", refer to a software unit, a physical computing module, or the like in the absence of any structure recited in the specification.
Claim 6 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. Similar to claim 1, the claims recite a " charging rate detection unit" , which as explained above is being interpreted under U.S.C 112(f) to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function- however no structure is described in the specification. It is unclear whether the " charging rate detection unit", refers to a software unit, a physical computing module, or the like in the absence of any structure recited in the specification.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for depending from an indefinite independent claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120013196), herein after referred to as Kim, in view of Ichikawa (US 20030180583), herein after referred to as Ichikawa.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses:
capable of switching between a first traveling mode in which the vehicle travels mainly using power generated by a fuel cell and a second traveling mode in which the vehicle travels using discharge power of a battery, (see at least [Fig. 7] [0019] “selecting a battery mode for supplying only output power of the battery to the load, and the controlling may include turning off the output power of the fuel cell and supplying the output power of the battery to the load in the battery mode." [0021] "when current performance of the battery is less than a predetermined level, changing an operating mode from the battery mode to a start-up mode, and supplying a portion of the output power of the battery in the start-up mode, such that the operation of the fuel cell starts.”)
the start control device comprising :a request determination unit (see at least [0071] “the controller 70 controls power supplying operations of the fuel cell 10 and the battery 20 to the load 80, and an operation of the BOP 61, in a battery mode for supplying only the output power of the battery 20 to the load 80 from among various operation modes of the fuel cell system. In other words, the controller 70 sets the fuel cell system in a battery mode," [0072] " In Operation 62, the controller 70 determines if a start-up mode for starting the operation of the fuel cell 10 is to be selected from among the various operating modes of the fuel cell system.”)
and a start control unit configured to perform control to start the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode when the request determination unit determines that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode. (see at least [0071] “ The battery mode is selected when it is assumed that the battery 20 is sufficiently charged at a beginning of an operation of the fuel cell system. Thus, other operating modes may be selected according to a charging state of the battery 20 when the operation of the fuel cell system is started.”)
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
configured to determine whether there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode after a power supply of the fuel cell vehicle is turned ON;
In the same field of endeavor, Ichikawa discloses:
configured to determine whether there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode after a power supply of the fuel cell vehicle is turned ON; (see at least [0035] “In this invention, particularly at startup of fuel cell vehicle operation, the controller 33 performs a control routine for fuel cell activation in order to avoid unnecessary power consumption." [0047] “Conversely when the energy required to activate the fuel cell 21 is greater than or equal to the determination value Q, the routine proceeds from the step S30 to a step S50 and the fuel cell 21 is not activated (fuel cell activation flag=0).”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the hybrid hydrogen fuel cell vehicle field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim to specifically disclose the process by which the system determines whether there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode after a power supply of the fuel cell vehicle is turned ON, rather than simply stating the battery mode is on at startup, as taught by Ichikawa to determine whether to activate a fuel cell driving mode or battery driving mode based on fuel cell activation energy requirement [0044, Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kim discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Kim further discloses:
further comprising a charging rate detection unit configured to detect a charging rate of the battery, (see at least [0072] “That is, the controller 70 determines if the SOC of the battery 20 is less than a predetermined low limit, e.g., if the SOC of the battery 20 is less than about 50% of full charge,”)
wherein the start control unit is configured to perform control to start the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode (see at least [0071] “the controller 70 controls power supplying operations of the fuel cell 10 and the battery 20 to the load 80, and an operation of the BOP 61, in a battery mode for supplying only the output power of the battery 20 to the load 80 from among various operation modes of the fuel cell system. In other words, the controller 70 sets the fuel cell system in a battery mode," [0072] "In Operation 62, the controller 70 determines if a start-up mode for starting the operation of the fuel cell 10 is to be selected from among the various operating modes of the fuel cell system.”)
and the charging rate of the battery detected by the charging rate detection unit is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold. (see at least [0071] “ The battery mode is selected when it is assumed that the battery 20 is sufficiently charged at a beginning of an operation of the fuel cell system. Thus, other operating modes may be selected according to a charging state of the battery 20 when the operation of the fuel cell system is started.”)
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
when the request determination unit determines that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode
In the same field of endeavor, Ichikawa discloses:
when the request determination unit determines that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode (see at least [0035] “In this invention, particularly at startup of fuel cell vehicle operation, the controller 33 performs a control routine for fuel cell activation in order to avoid unnecessary power consumption." ." [0047] “Conversely when the energy required to activate the fuel cell 21 is greater than or equal to the determination value Q, the routine proceeds from the step S30 to a step S50 and the fuel cell 21 is not activated (fuel cell activation flag=0).”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the hybrid hydrogen fuel cell vehicle field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim to specifically disclose the process by which the system determines whether there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode after a power supply of the fuel cell vehicle is turned ON, rather than simply stating the battery mode is on at startup, as taught by Ichikawa to determine whether to activate a fuel cell driving mode or battery driving mode based on fuel cell activation energy requirement [0044, Fig. 2].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120013196), herein after referred to as Kim, in view of Ichikawa (US 20030180583), herein after referred to as Ichikawa, and Auer (DE 102020202030), herein after referred to as Auer
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Kim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the request determination unit is configured to determine whether a traveling mode of the fuel cell vehicle has been switched to the second traveling mode immediately before the power supply of the fuel cell vehicle was turned OFF last time,
and to determine that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode when the traveling mode of the fuel cell vehicle has been switched to the second traveling mode immediately before the power supply was turned OFF last time.
In the same field of endeavor, Auer discloses:
wherein the request determination unit is configured to determine whether a traveling mode of the fuel cell vehicle has been switched to the second traveling mode immediately before the power supply of the fuel cell vehicle was turned OFF last time, (see at least [0011] “In the event of an interruption of the journey, during which the vehicle stops and the driver puts the vehicle into an inactive driving readiness state, i.e., switches it off, the last selected setting can not only be stored by the presented device,”)
and to determine that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode when the traveling mode of the fuel cell vehicle has been switched to the second traveling mode immediately before the power supply was turned OFF last time. (see at least [0011] “but is also preset when the vehicle's central processing unit is switched on again, so that the hybrid vehicle can be operated in the last selected driving setting immediately after this ignition change process and without having to select the driving setting again.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the hybrid vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim to determine whether a traveling mode of the fuel cell vehicle has been switched to the second traveling mode immediately before the power supply of the fuel cell vehicle was turned OFF last time, and to determine that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode when the traveling mode of the fuel cell vehicle has been switched to the second traveling mode immediately before the power supply was turned OFF last time, as taught by Auer to allow a vehicle to preserve its previous operating settings upon next startup to ease driver operation [0006].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120013196), herein after referred to as Kim, in view of Ichikawa (US 20030180583), herein after referred to as Ichikawa, and Noriyoshi (JP 2018030401), herein after referred to as Noriyoshi.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Kim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the fuel cell vehicle includes a manual operation unit configured to perform an instruction operation for causing the fuel cell vehicle to travel in the second traveling mode,
and the request determination unit is configured to determine whether an instruction operation for causing the fuel cell vehicle to travel in the second traveling mode has been performed by the manual operation unit,
and to determine that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode when the instruction operation for causing the fuel cell vehicle to travel in the second traveling mode has been performed.
In the same field of endeavor, Noriyoshi discloses:
wherein the fuel cell vehicle includes a manual operation unit configured to perform an instruction operation for causing the fuel cell vehicle to travel in the second traveling mode, (see at least [0007] “an EV start-up mode switch for requesting the vehicle control device to start up only the electric motor at the time of system start-up of the hybrid vehicle”)
and the request determination unit is configured to determine whether an instruction operation for causing the fuel cell vehicle to travel in the second traveling mode has been performed by the manual operation unit, (see at least [0049] “When the start-up process is started, the control unit 32 first confirms the EV start-up mode switch 42 (step S12)”)
and to determine that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode when the instruction operation for causing the fuel cell vehicle to travel in the second traveling mode has been performed. (see at least [0049] “When the EV start-up mode switch 42 is on, the control unit 32 requests the start of only the motor 21 at the time of system start-up of the hybrid vehicle 1 (step S13).”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the hybrid vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim to allow for the driver to control whether the vehicle is started in electric vehicle mode, as taught by Noriyoshi to provide a user a start mode switch to decide whether to start in EV mode [0007].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120013196), herein after referred to as Kim, in view of Ichikawa (US 20030180583), herein after referred to as Ichikawa, and Ellis (US 20150051819), herein after referred to as Ellis.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Kim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the fuel cell vehicle includes a car navigation system configured to assist traveling of the fuel cell vehicle,
and the request determination unit is configured to determine whether the fuel cell vehicle is present at a designated place registered in advance in the car navigation system based on information of the car navigation system,
and to determine that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode when the fuel cell vehicle is present at the designated place.
In the same field of endeavor, Ichikawa makes obvious:
wherein the fuel cell vehicle includes a car navigation system configured to assist traveling of the fuel cell vehicle, (see at least [0082] “a GPS 57C (see in FIG. 1)”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the hybrid hydrogen fuel cell vehicle field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim to include that wherein the fuel cell vehicle includes a car navigation system configured to assist traveling of the fuel cell vehicle, as taught by Ichikawa to provide GPS for location-based functions 0082]. While the reference does not explicitly cite the use of GPS for navigation, the use of GPS for navigation is extremely well-known, routine, and conventional within the vehicle art and as such a vehicle with GPS makes a car navigation system obvious to any person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention.
In the same field of endeavor, Ellis discloses:
and the request determination unit is configured to determine whether the fuel cell vehicle is present at a designated place registered in advance in the car navigation system based on information of the car navigation system, (see at least [0029] “start-up controller 110 receives user settings including at least one geographic location where a quiet start mode is enabled" [0036] " start-up controller 110 enables a quiet start mode by operating vehicle 105 in an electric vehicle mode”)
and to determine that there is a request for starting the fuel cell vehicle in the second traveling mode when the fuel cell vehicle is present at the designated place. (see at least [] “ Environmental conditions, also referred to herein as ambient parameters, are defined as including, without limitation, a current time of day in which the ignition request is received and/or a current geographical location of the vehicle when the ignition request is received. The start-up controller compares the environmental conditions with the stored user settings, and controls the sound generated by the vehicle during vehicle start-up operations based on a result of the comparison between the environmental conditions and the stored user settings.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the hybrid vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim to determine whether the vehicle is present at a designated place registered in advance in the car navigation system based on information of the car navigation system, and to determine that there is a request for starting the vehicle in the second traveling mode when the vehicle is present at the designated place, as taught by Ellis to start a vehicle in a quiet mode which is an EV mode, based on being within a predetermined location [0029].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights