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 Application
Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1 and 20 are the independent claims. Claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 17-20, and 24-25 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 12/09/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/09/2025 “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims filed on 12/09/2025, the rejection of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C § 101, have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 has have been fully considered but they are not, respectfully, persuasive. With respect to claim 1, applicant argues that the claim relates to a method for operating a commercial vehicle (utility vehicle as recited in the claim), while Watanabe reference discloses a fuel cell system for passenger car (fuel cell vehicle as disclosed in the Watanabe disclosure). Applicant argues that commercial vehicles with fuel cell drives differ fundamentally from smaller motor vehicle, such as passenger cars. Applicant refers to paragraph [0003] of their written description, particularly, the disclosure of “the fuel cell is not typically directly connected to the electric motors, but rather to the electrical storage”, and further referred to Fig. 1 of Watanabe to show that in Watanabe disclosure, the fuel cell is directly connected to the electric motor and the electric storage device (secondary battery) only connected parallel to the supply line having the fuel cell. First, according the applicant’s cited excerpt from the instant specification, it is disclosed that the fuel cell is not typically directly connected to the electric motors, therefore, in a case of a vehicle that it is directly connected to the electric motor, it still meets the specification. Second, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fuel cell not being directly connected to the electric motor) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not respectfully persuasive.
Further, applicant argues, See Remarks, Page 2, last paragraph, that the fuel cell in Watanabe does not supply the secondary battery however, the argument is not persuasive, because according to Watanabe, at least Col 1, Lines 28-37, “The secondary battery in the fuel cell system stores electric power generated by the fuel cell.”. Further, in Col 6 Lines 35-38, Watanabe disclose that “the vehicle provided with the fuel cell system 100 travels by the electric power supplied from the fuel cell system 100 (step S18), and the process returns to step S11.”. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
On pages 3-4 of Remarks, applicant further explains what the difference in the intention of the claimed invention is comparing to the aim of Watanabe disclosure. However, the argument is not, respectfully, persuasive, because applicant argues limitations that have not been recited in the claim. This is the office stance that the claim, as written, has been properly rejected as being anticipated by Watanabe.
Further, the applicant’s argument regarding the dependent claim being originated from allowable claim is considered, but unpersuasive. This is the office stance that all the rejections have been properly made.
Office Note: It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 10-12, 20, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al., US 10770761 B2, hereinafter “Watanabe”.
Regarding claims 1, and 23-25, Watanabe discloses the recited limitations in claim 1 as a method for operating a utility vehicle having an electric motor drive (Col 1, Line 16, “a fuel cell vehicle.”, Lines 21-27) , an electrical storage system for supplying the electric motor drive (Col 1, Lines 24-27, “The electric power supplied from the fuel cell system is supplied to electrical loads including a motor for traveling and auxiliary machines”, Lines 29-31, “The electric power with which the secondary battery is charged is used, for example, as restarting electric power of the system”, __according to the reference, secondary battery reads on the electrical storage as recited in the claim__ ) and a fuel cell for supplying the electrical storage system (Col 1, Lines 28-37, “The secondary battery in the fuel cell system stores electric power generated by the fuel cell.”, Col 3, Lines 42-59), the method comprising: controlling the fuel cell during a journey such that a charge level of the electric energy storage system is below a predetermined charge level when a journey interruption occurs (Col 1, last para and Col 2, first para, “control the fuel cell system.”, “The controller determines whether or not a state of charge of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than a threshold [] at which electric power required to stop []”); and, continuing to control the fuel cell during the journey interruption until at least one of the electrical storage system has reached the predetermined charge level and the journey interruption has ended (Col 2, Lines 4-9, “In a case where the controller receives a command to stop the fuel cell system and determines that the state of charge of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold, the controller controls the fuel cell system to perform forced charging of the secondary battery by the fuel cell until the state of charge reaches the threshold.”) and Watanabe et al discloses recited limitations in claim 23 as A control unit for a fuel cell system of a utility vehicle wherein the control unit is configured to execute the method of claim 1 (Col 1, Lines 16-18, and Col 4, Lines 54-59, and Lines 65-66, “a controller configured to control the fuel cell system”, See the rejection of claim 1 and also Col 1 last paragraph and Col 2 first paragraph of Watanabe reference for the rejection of method of claim 1), and Watanabe discloses recited limitations in claim 24 as A non-transitory computer readable medium having computer program stored thereon, said computer program product containing commands which, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to form the control unit of claim 23 (Col 4, Lines 54-61, “a program stored in a storage unit such as a RAM, and the like and performs various operations needed for the control.”), and Watanabe discloses recited limitations in claim 24 as A non-transitory computer readable medium having computer program product stored thereon, said computer program product including commands which, when executed on a computer, perform the method of claim 1 (Col 4, Lines 54-61, “a program stored in a storage unit such as a RAM, and the like and performs various operations needed for the control.”, Col 3, Lines 23-31, Col 4, Lines 54-61, See the rejection of claim 1 and also Col 1 last paragraph and Col 2 first paragraph of Watanabe reference for the rejection of method of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10 and 11, Watanabe discloses The method of claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1), wherein the fuel cell is configured to be operated at different operating points and the method further comprises: adjusting an operating point of the fuel cell during the journey interruption depending on journey interruption information in dependence upon the duration of the journey interruption (Fig 4 and associated text in Col 6 last two paragraph and Col 7 first paragraph __teaches relation between the set threshold and forces charging time period (reads on interruption duration) an teaches adjusting the operating point of the fuel cell (threshold) based).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe discloses wherein the operating point of the fuel cell is adjusted such that the fuel cell continues to be controlled throughout an entirety of the journey interruption (at least Fig. 4, last and first paragraph of Col 1 and 2, respectively, Col 2, Lines 22-28, Col 2, Lines 36-55).
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe discloses A fuel cell system of a utility vehicle having an electric motor drive (Col 1, Line 16, “a fuel cell vehicle.”, Lines 21-27), the fuel cell system comprising: an electrical storage system with a variable charge level for supplying the electric motor drive (Col 1, Lines 24-27, “The electric power supplied from the fuel cell system is supplied to electrical loads including a motor for traveling and auxiliary machines”, Lines 29-31, “The electric power with which the secondary battery is charged is used, for example, as restarting electric power of the system”, __according to the reference, secondary battery reads on the electrical storage as recited in the claim__ , Col 1, Line 67, “a state of charge of the secondary battery”, __ determining the state of the charge of secondary battery shows it has variable charge level__); a fuel cell for supplying said electrical storage system (Col 1, Lines 28-37, “The secondary battery in the fuel cell system stores electric power generated by the fuel cell.”, Col 3, Lines 42-59); a control unit connected to said fuel cell in a signal-conducting manner and being configured to control the fuel cell (Col 1, Lines 16-18, Col 4, Lines 54-59, and Lines 65-66, “a controller configured to control the fuel cell system”); and, said control unit being configured to control said fuel cell during a journey such that a charge level of said electric energy storage system is below a predetermined charge level when a journey interruption occurs (Col 1, last para and Col 2, first para, “control the fuel cell system.”, “The controller determines whether or not a state of charge of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than a threshold [] at which electric power required to stop []”); and to continue to control said fuel cell during the journey interruption until at least one of said electrical storage system has reached the predetermined charge level and the driving interruption has ended (Col 2, Lines 4-9, “In a case where the controller receives a command to stop the fuel cell system and determines that the state of charge of the secondary battery is equal to or lower than the threshold, the controller controls the fuel cell system to perform forced charging of the secondary battery by the fuel cell until the state of charge reaches the threshold.”).
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al., US 10770761 B2, hereinafter “Watanabe”, in view of Hass, US 20230075054 A1, hereinafter “Haas”, further in view of Wake et al., US 20140156128 A1, hereinafter “Wake”.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the method of claim 1, However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose it further comprising at least one of: compiling or providing journey information on a forthcoming journey and journey interruption information on at least one journey interruption planned during the forthcoming journey; and, determining a journey interruption energy amount that can be supplied from the fuel cell to the electrical storage system during the at least one journey interruption.
Nevertheless, Haas teaches at least one of: compiling or providing journey information on a forthcoming journey ([0066], “Information about the upcoming route can be provided,”) and journey interruption information on at least one journey interruption planned during the forthcoming journey ([0067], “estimate when the utility vehicle 10 will make a stop and the minimum duration of this stop.”);
Nevertheless, Wake teaches determining a journey interruption energy amount that can be supplied from the fuel cell to the electrical storage system during the at least one journey interruption (Abstract, [0063]-[0067], “a required SOC during stop is calculated, and then the processing advances to Step S3. This required SOC during stop corresponds to the remaining capacity that is minimally demanded in the battery upon stopping the system in order to ensure appropriate startup of the fuel cell system subsequently.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with providing information about an upcoming journey for the vehicle as taught by Haas, and further with determine the amount of anergy that fuel cell can provide to the electrical storage system as taught by Wake, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and lifetime of the fuel cells.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses wherein the fuel cell is controlled during the journey such that the charge level of the electrical storage system at a start of the at least one journey interruption is below its predetermined charge state by at least the journey interruption energy amount (Fig. 4, Coll 6, last para, “At timing t2 at which the traveling of the short trip ends and the command to stop the fuel cell system 100 is instructed (S11), the controller 11 determines that the state of charge of the secondary battery 12 is equal to or lower than the SOC threshold 1 (S12).”, Col 7, second para, “when the vehicle travels a short trip [] the state of charge of the secondary battery 12 further decreases. When the traveling of the short trip ends [] stop the vehicle, [] the state of charge of the secondary battery 12 at this time is equal to or lower than the SOC threshold 2”).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Haas and Wake discloses the method of claim 2 (See rejection for claim 2), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the journey information includes at least one of: a length of the journey; a duration of the journey; a calendar information, in particular information about work days or days off; a route topography; a time interval from last completed journey; a number of stops on the forthcoming journey; and, a number of loading and unloading operations for freight on the utility vehicle.
Nevertheless, Hass discloses wherein the journey information includes at least one of: a length of the journey; a duration of the journey; a calendar information, in particular information about work days or days off; a route topography; a time interval from last completed journey; a number of stops on the forthcoming journey; and, a number of loading and unloading operations for freight on the utility vehicle ([0016], “the control can be based on a planned route of the utility vehicle,”, “a planned (for example legally prescribed) driving time, rest time and/or break time of a driver of the utility vehicle, preferably provided by a (for example digital) tachograph, a current and/or planned loading of the utility vehicle,”, [0066], “Information about the upcoming route can be provided, for example, by a navigation system of the utility vehicle. The information can include charging station locations, refueling station locations, route lengths, gradients, inclines, traffic data and/or traffic rules, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with providing information about an vehicle’s upcoming journey (as recited in the claim) for the vehicle as taught by Haas, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and lifetime of the fuel cells by controlling the fuel cells operation during the vehicle’s interruptions/stops.
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe in view of Haas and Wake discloses the method of claim 2 (See rejection for claim 2), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the journey interruption information includes at least one of: a position on a route where the journey interruption occurs; a start time of the journey interruption; an end time of the journey interruption; a duration of the journey interruption; a time interval between adjacent journey interruptions; and, a distance between adjacent journey interruptions.
Nevertheless, Hass discloses wherein the journey interruption information includes at least one of: a position on a route where the journey interruption occurs; a start time of the journey interruption; an end time of the journey interruption; a duration of the journey interruption; a time interval between adjacent journey interruptions; and, a distance between adjacent journey interruptions (Claim 24, “planned driving time, rest time, and/or break time are provided by a tachograph”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with providing information about an vehicle’s upcoming journey (as recited in the claim) as taught by Haas, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and lifetime of the fuel cells by controlling the fuel cells operation during the vehicle’s interruptions/stops.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Haas and Wake, further in view of Schaffer et al., US 20200317077 A1, hereinafter “Schaffer”, further in view of Dany et al., US 20220203867 A1, hereinafter “Dany”.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe in view of Haas and Wake discloses the method of claim 2 (See rejection for claim 2), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein said compiling the journey interruption information includes: determining a duration of a forthcoming journey; determining a distance remaining after a next journey interruption; determining a mass of freight loaded onto the vehicle; determining information representative of a driving behavior of a driving staff; determining the presence of a trailer attached to the utility vehicle for the forthcoming journey; and, determining weather data for the duration of the forthcoming journey.
Nevertheless, Hass discloses wherein said compiling the journey interruption information includes ([0066], “based on a planned route of the utility vehicle,”, [0068], “planned intermediate stops”): determining a duration of a forthcoming journey ([0016], “ a planned (for example legally prescribed) driving time”); ([0069], “Information regarding a current load of the utility vehicle 10 can be detected, for example, by load sensors, estimated by an acceleration-based mass estimator”); (at least, [0092], “features relating to the presence and/or configuration of the body or trailer”, [0008], “The utility vehicle comprises a (for example detachable or exchangeable) body or a trailer”); and, determining weather data for the duration of the forthcoming journey ([0070], “predicted climate (across countries) over a planned route of the utility vehicle 10.”).
Nevertheless, Schaffer et al., US 20200317077 A1, teaches determining a distance remaining after a next journey interruption ([0026], “determining the remaining trip distance of the EV”)
Nevertheless, Dany teaches determining information representative of a driving behavior of a driving staff ([0035], “data which characterise the driving behaviour of a driver of the motor vehicle,”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with providing information about an vehicle’s upcoming journey (as recited in the claim) as taught by Haas, Schaffer and Dany in combination with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and lifetime of the fuel cells by controlling the fuel cells operation during the vehicle’s interruptions/stops.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe in view of Haas and Wake discloses the method of claim 6 (See rejection for claim 6), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein at least one of: an average energy consumption is determined; and, weather data along a route is determined for the duration of the forthcoming journey.
Nevertheless, Hass discloses wherein at least one of: an average energy consumption is determined ([0069], [0070], “an energy consumption of the cab heater and/or of the consumer 20 can be taken into account or predicted”); and, weather data along a route is determined for the duration of the forthcoming journey ([0070], “predicted climate (across countries) over a planned route of the utility vehicle 10.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with providing information about an vehicle’s upcoming journey (as recited in the claim) for the vehicle as taught by Haas, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and lifetime of the fuel cells by controlling the fuel cells operation during the vehicle’s interruptions/stops.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Haas and Wake, further in view of Schaffer and Dany, further in view of Lin et al, CN112677763A, hereinafter “Lin”.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe in view of Haas and Wake discloses the method of claim 6 (See rejection for claim 6), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein said compiling the journey interruption information includes at least one of: determining a required journey interruption duration as a function of the determined journey duration; compiling a journey interruption plan, in which the journey interruption duration is distributed over a number of journey interruptions throughout the duration of the journey; and, at least one of modifying and confirming the compiled journey interruption plan via user input.
Nevertheless, Hass teaches wherein said compiling the journey interruption information includes at least one of: determining a required journey interruption duration as a function of the determined journey duration; compiling a journey interruption plan, in which the journey interruption duration is distributed over a number of journey interruptions throughout the duration of the journey (Haas, [0066], “based on a planned route of the utility vehicle,”, [0068], “planned intermediate stops”, [0071], __alternative limitations and the underlined limitation has been mapped with the aforementioned reference__);
Nevertheless, Lin teaches at least one of modifying and confirming the compiled journey interruption plan via user input ([n0022], “a reminder message is displayed on the itinerary planning interface, and the reminder message is used to remind the passenger to re-plan the itinerary information or use the currently planned itinerary information.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with providing information about an vehicle’s upcoming journey (as recited in the claim) for the vehicle as taught by Haas and also modifying or confirming the planned journey as taught by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and lifetime of the fuel cells by controlling the fuel cells operation during the vehicle’s interruptions/stops.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe in view of Haas and Wake discloses the method of claim 8 (See rejection for claim 8), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the fuel cell is controlled as a function of the journey interruption plan.
Nevertheless, Haas discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the fuel cell is controlled as a function of the journey interruption plan ([0016], “The control can be based on a planned route of the utility vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with providing information about an vehicle’s upcoming journey (as recited in the claim) for the vehicle as taught by Haas, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the efficiency and lifetime of the fuel cells by controlling the fuel cells operation during the utility vehicle’s journey and its interruptions/stops.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Lavertu et al., US 20240088418 A1, hereinafter “Lavertu”.
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe discloses the method of claim 10 (See rejection for claim 10), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the fuel cell is configured to be operated at different operating points and the method further comprises: adjusting an operating point of the fuel cell during the journey interruption depending on the journey interruption information.
Nevertheless, Lavertu teaches wherein the operating point of the fuel cell is adjusted such that the fuel cell continues to be controlled throughout an entirety of the journey interruption, in a range of at least one of 10% to 70% of the rated power of the fuel cell, 15% to 60% of the rated power of the fuel cell, and 20% to 50% of the rated power of the fuel cell ([0026], [0066], “high efficiency range of the fuel cell may correspond to a power output range of about 20%-40% of a rated power of the fuel cell.”, [0076], “A trip plan may be stored at the controller, the trip plan providing a travel route to be navigated by the train and used to adjust distribution of a power demand amongst the power systems.”, __the range as cited in the reference is overlapped in the range as recited in the claim__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with controlling the operating point of the fuel cells to be in the specific range (recited in the claim 13) as taught by Lavertu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing the expedite of degradation of the fuel cell by setting its operating point inside the power capacity range specific to the power system.
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Maier, US 20130335000 A1, hereinafter “Maier”.
Regarding claims 14 and 21, Watanabe discloses the method of claim 1(See rejection for claim 1) and 20 (See rejection for claim 20), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the fuel cell includes at least one compressor having a rotationally driven compressor shaft, the method further comprising (or said control unit being configured to): continuing to drive the compressor shaft at a predetermined speed even if the predetermined charge level of the electrical storage system has been reached before the journey interruption has ended.
Nevertheless, Maier teaches wherein the fuel cell includes at least one compressor having a rotationally driven compressor shaft ([0002], [0008], [0018]), the method further comprising: continuing to drive the compressor shaft at a predetermined speed even if the predetermined charge level of the electrical storage system has been reached before the journey interruption has ended ([0027], [0029], “compressor 14 continues to operate at its idle rotation speed.”, KR 20190116630 A, The controller 50 may maintain the compressor reference speed 1 and the air shutoff valve reference angle 1 for a reference time 2 , __ maintain the speed for a reference time (period of time) reads on maintain the speed for the interruption time__)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with maintaining the speed of the compressor shaft associated with a fuel cell at a predetermined speed for the duration of vehicle interruption as taught by Miaer, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the lifetime of the fuel cell.
Claims 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Maier, further in view of Roul et al., DE102015211447A1, hereinafter “Roul”.
Regarding claims 15 and 22, Watanabe in view of Miaer teaches the method of claim 14 and 21 (See the rejection for claim 14 and 21), however, the prior arts relied upon doesn’t explicitly discloses wherein the predetermined speed is above a lift-off speed.
Nevertheless, Roul teaches wherein the predetermined speed is above a lift-off speed ([0031], “equal to or greater than the lift-off rotational speed”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe in view of Miaer with maintaining the speed of the compressor shaft associated with a fuel cell at a predetermined speed above a lift-off speed as taught by Roul, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of protecting the fuel cell from performance degradation by ensuring smooth operation and efficient air delivery for electrochemical reactions in the fuel cell.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Maier, further in view of Yoshi, JP2011223870A, hereinafter “Yoshi”.
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe disclose the method of claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1), however, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein said controlling of the fuel cell during the journey is carried out such that a smaller amount of energy is provided, either continuously or in sections, during the journey than is requested by the electric motor drive of the utility vehicle, meaning that the remaining amount of energy required is supplied to the electric motor drive from the electrical storage system, resulting in a drop in the charge level.
Nevertheless, Yoshi teaches wherein said controlling of the fuel cell during the journey is carried out such that a smaller amount of energy is provided, either continuously or in sections, during the journey than is requested by the electric motor drive of the utility vehicle ([0014], “a target output value smaller than the required power is set, the fuel cell outputs less power than the required power, and the power shortage is compensated for by the output from the power storage unit.”, [0064], “the target output value of the fuel cell 60 relative to the accelerator opening is set to three stages depending on the remaining capacity SOC of the battery 50, but it may be set to more stages or to change continuously.”), meaning that the remaining amount of energy required is supplied to the electric motor drive from the electrical storage system, resulting in a drop in the charge level (at least [0014], ([0008], “a fuel cell control unit which controls operation of the fuel cell in accordance with the target output value; and a storage control unit which controls charging and discharging of the storage unit based on the required power”, [0023], “a storage control unit which controls the charging and discharging of the storage unit so as to compensate for the difference between the current required power and the power supplied by the fuel cell”, __ Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, the remaining required amount of energy for the electric motor (when fuel cell provide smaller amount of energy) is compensated by the electrical storage which reads by the aforementioned reference and cited paragraph__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with controlling the fuel cell to output smaller power than required by the motor and having the electrical storage to compensate for the remaining required power as taught by Yoshi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving fuel cell’s efficiency so that it can continue providing power to the electrical storage in the next stop of the vehicle with the goal of increasing the fuel cell’s lifetime by allowing the possible reduction in wear and degradation of the vehicle’s fuel system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Maier, further in view of Yoshi, further in view of Hamada et al., US 20100316922 A1, hereinafter “Hamada”.
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe in view Yoshi discloses the method of claim 16 (See rejection for claim 16), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein said controlling the fuel cell is executed during the journey such that a smaller amount of energy than that requested by the electric motor drive of the utility vehicle is provided in sections during the journey and wherein a point in time at which the fuel cell provides a smaller amount of energy is determined as a function of at least one parameter including at least one of: a sought-after lower charge level threshold of the electrical storage system at the start of the journey interruption; a falling below a predetermined travel time remaining until a next journey interruption; a falling below a predetermined distance remaining until the next journey interruption; and, a topography of the route remaining until the next journey interruption.
Nevertheless, Yoshi teaches wherein said controlling the fuel cell is executed during the journey such that a smaller amount of energy than that requested by the electric motor of the utility vehicle is provided in sections during the journey ([0014], “a target output value smaller than the required power is set, the fuel cell outputs less power than the required power, and the power shortage is compensated for by the output from the power storage unit.”, [0064], “the target output value of the fuel cell 60 relative to the accelerator opening is set to three stages depending on the remaining capacity SOC of the battery 50, but it may be set to more stages or to change continuously.”, __ the target output of fuel cell setting in stages read on fuel cell executing in sections__)
Nevertheless, Hamada teaches wherein a point in time at which the fuel cell provides a smaller amount of energy is determined as a function of at least one parameter including at least one of: a sought-after lower charge level threshold of the electrical storage system at the start of the journey interruption; a falling below a predetermined travel time remaining until a next journey interruption; a falling below a predetermined distance remaining until the next journey interruption; and, a topography of the route remaining until the next journey interruption ([0023], “If a residual electricity quantity of the secondary battery is equal to or larger than a threshold value for switching over the charge and the discharge of the secondary battery, i.e., if the secondary battery is in a discharging state, the electric power discharged from the secondary battery can be supplied to the drive motor, and the output electric power of the fuel cell tends to decrease.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with controlling the fuel cell to output smaller power than required by the motor and having the electrical storage to compensate for the remaining required power as taught by Yoshi and also decreasing the power output from fuel cells if the electrical storage charge level is at a sought-after (predetermined) threshold as taught by Hamada, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving fuel cell’s efficiency so that it can continue providing power to the electrical storage in the next stop of the vehicle with the goal of increasing the fuel cell’s lifetime by allowing the possible reduction in wear and degradation of the vehicle’s fuel system.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view Al-Sagheer et al, US 20220161687 A1, hereinafter “Al-Sagheer”.
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Watanabe in discloses the method of claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1), However, Watanabe doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined charge level of the electrical storage system is below a maximum charge capacity thereof in a range of at least one of 50% to 80% and 60% to 70%.
Nevertheless, Al-Sagheer, discloses wherein the predetermined charge level of the electrical storage system is below a maximum charge capacity thereof in a range of at least one of 50% to 80% and 60% to 70% ([0023]-[0024], “charging set point value may be set at a level at which there is charging of the energy storing system only where it is charged below a predefined percentage of full charge.”, [0092], “to maintain the battery charge at a consistent charge level (e.g. approximately 50%) whilst providing/absorbing any electrical energy differential between that generated by the fuel cell 113 and the motor of the vehicle 117, to the extent that the battery 107 has capacity so to do.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for operating a utility vehicle as taught by Watanabe with setting the predetermined charge level of the electrical storage below a percentage of its full capacity as recited in the claim) as taught by Al-Sagheer, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of controlling the fuel cell output power supplied to the electrical storage in order to improve the lifetime and efficiency of the fuel cell.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669