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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/455,014 filed on 08/24/2023. Claims 1-24 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. Group(s) II and III, claims 14-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0172822 filed on 12/12/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian et al. (US-20120316711-A1) and further in view of Allen et al. (US-20090250210-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Christian discloses a fuel cell system, comprising:
a radiator (see e.g. " radiator 22" in paragraph [0023] and part number 22 in FIG. 5) disposed on an electronic part cooling line (see e.g. " cooling system 20" in paragraph [0023]), the cooling line configured to pass through an electronic part (see e.g. " the cooling system 20... is fluidly coupled to one of more heat sources 24, including electronic or electrically-driven devices which may generally be referred to as electronics" in paragraph [0023]) and to circulate a coolant (see e.g. "circulate a coolant through the system" in paragraph [0024]), the radiator being configured to cool the coolant (see e.g. "Coolant is drawn from the surge tank 60 and pumped to the radiator 22 where heat may be removed from the coolant and dissipated to the atmosphere" in paragraph [0066]);
a coolant pump configured to pump the coolant to circulate the coolant in electronic part cooling line (see e.g. "The cooling system may include a coolant pump 28 to move or circulate a coolant through the system, including the heat exchanger and the electronics" in paragraph [0024] and part number 28 in FIG. 5); and
a controller (see e.g. " A system controller 30" in paragraph [0024] and part number 30 in FIG. 1) configured to:
determine whether air bubbles are generated (see e.g. " the controller 30 may be configured or programmed to detect overspeed events and/or under speed events and store the detected events in memory" in paragraph [0038] and "A detected overspeed event may represent short term events caused by relatively small gas bubbles passing through the pump, long term events caused by one or more large gas pockets passing through the pump, or a combination of bubbles and pockets that create short and long term events" in paragraph [0039]), based on a change in a speed of the coolant pump while the coolant is circulating (see e.g. paragraphs [0036]-[0039]); and
control an air bleeding through the coolant pump (see e.g. " the heated coolant is pumped to a surge tank 60 where air or gas bubbles or pockets, if present, may be removed," in paragraph [0066]).
Christian does not disclose that the air bubbles are detected based on a change in current of the coolant pump while the coolant is circulating.
Allen, however, in the same field of endeavor, air bubble detection of pump based systems, discloses a controlled that detects air bubbles based on a change in a current of the coolant pump while the pump is circulating (see e.g. "data monitoring and control device 12 is linked to sensors 24 a-24 n via communication link 24 and motor controller 16 via link 17 in order to detect and break gas locks without requiring system shutdown. In an example embodiment, the gas lock detecting and breaking functionality of device 12 is conducted based solely upon surface data, such as current" in paragraph [0030] of Allen).
Allen also teaches that utilizing a controller like this allows for detection and to break an occurrence of gas lock without the need for operator intervention (see e.g. paragraph [0007] of Allen). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Christian et al. such that it determines whether air bubbles are generated, based on a change in a current of the coolant pump while the coolant is circulating as taught by Allen et al. in order to allow for detection and air bleeding without operator intervention as suggested by Allen.
Regarding Claim 11, Christian in view of Allen disclose the fuel cell system of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Christian further discloses that the fuel cell system further comprises:
a reservoir installed on the electronic part cooling line and connected to the radiator; the reservoir being configured to store the coolant (see e.g. “After exiting the electronics, the heated coolant is pumped to a surge tank 60” and “Coolant is drawn from the surge tank 60 and pumped to the radiator 22 where heat may be removed from the coolant and dissipated to the atmosphere.” in paragraph [0066] and part number 60 in FIG. 5)
Claim 2 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian et al. (US-20120316711-A1) in view of Allen et al. (US-20090250210-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itani (US-20150333687-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Christian in view of Allen discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Christian in view of Allen does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: monitor the current of the coolant pump while controlling the coolant pump to a target duty.
Itani, however, in the analogous field of controlling an electric motor using current feedback and pulse width modulation (PWM), discloses a controller configured to monitor the current of a motor while controlling the motor to a target duty (see e.g. paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and FIG. 1 of Itani).
Itani further teaches that controlling a motor using current feedback and a target PWM duty allows the motor to be driven stably and efficiently (see e.g. paragraphs [0002], [0012] and [0056] of Itani). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Christian et al. in view of Allen et al. such that the current of the coolant pump while controlling the coolant pump to a target duty as taught by Itani in order to provide stable and efficient closed loop control of the coolant pump motor.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian et al. (US-20120316711-A1) in view of Allen et al. (US-20090250210-A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jeong (US-20200180393-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Christian in view of Allen discloses the fuel cell system of claim 11 (see e.g. claim 11 rejection above).
Christian in view of Allen does not disclose that the reservoir includes: a reservoir valve open to discharge air when the air bleeding is performed.
Jeong, however, in the same field of endeavor, cooling systems for fuel cells, discloses a reservoir tank comprising coolant (see e.g. " a reservoir tank into which the coolant may be injected to be stored" in paragraph [0007] of Jeong) that includes: a reservoir valve open to discharge air when the air bleeding is performed (see e.g. "The jiggle valve 240 may be connected to the reservoir tank 140... and may be configured to discharge air in a coolant included in the battery cooling pipe 250 to the reservoir tank 140" in paragraph [0028] of Jeong).
Jeong also teaches that the reservoir valve prevents air from being introduced into the cooling line and thus allows for coolant to circulate in the cooling line and effectively cool the battery (see e.g. paragraph [0028] of Jeong). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the reservoir of Christian et al. in view of Allen et al. such that it includes a reservoir valve open to discharge air when the air bleeding is performed as taught by Jeong in order to effectively cool the battery as suggested by Jeong.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian et al. (US-20120316711-A1) in view of Allen et al. (US-20090250210-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henke (US-20180034390-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Christian in view of Allen discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Christian in view of Allen does not disclose that the coolant pump includes: a motor; and four switching devices, and wherein the motor and the four switching devices comprise a full-bridge circuit to bi-directionally control a rotating operation of the motor.
Henke, however, in the same field of endeavor, electronically controlling a vehicle water pump. discloses a coolant pump (see e.g. "mechanical pump part 18" in paragraph [0025] and part number 18 in FIG. 1 of Henke) which includes:
a motor (see e.g. " drive motor 16" in paragraph [0025] and part number 16 in FIG. 1 of Henke); and
four switching devices (see e.g. "four power semiconductors T1 to T4 arranged in a so-called H-bridge" in paragraph [0026] and part numbers T1-T4 in FIG. 1 of Henke), and
wherein the motor and the four switching devices comprise a full-bridge circuit (see e.g. " T1 to T4 arranged in a so-called H-bridge" in paragraph [0026] and part numbers T1-T4 in FIG. 1 of Henke) to bi-directionally control a rotating operation of the motor (see e.g. "Low-voltage drive motors typically have a high inductivity of the motor coils 17 of the drive motor 16. " in paragraph [0025] and " the energizing of the motor coils 17 can be reversed in polarity, i.e., the direction of energizing of the motor coils 17 can be switched over or reversed" in paragraph [0026] of Henke; the switches control which direction the motor rotates bi-directionally).
Henke also teaches that this is a simple method for controlling a pump and requires little computation effort in the controller (see e.g. paragraphs [0005] of Henke). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coolant pump of Christian et al. in view of Allen et al. such that the coolant pump includes: a motor; and four switching devices, and wherein the motor and the four switching devices comprise a full-bridge circuit to bi-directionally control a rotating operation of the motor as taught by Henke in order to control the pump in a simple and effective way as suggested by Henke.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US-20220376277-A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US-20220367888-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Won discloses a fuel cell system (see e.g. "fuel cell system" in paragraph [0036] and FIG. 1), comprising:
a radiator disposed on an electronic part cooling line (see e.g. "A second radiator 70 for cooling the second coolant may be disposed on the second cooling line 120" in paragraph [0051] and part number 70 in FIG. 1), the cooling line configured to pass through an electronic part and to circulate a coolant (see e.g. "The second cooling line 120 passes via the power electronic parts 200, and the second coolant may circulate along the second cooling line 120" in paragraph [0049]), the radiator being configured to cool the coolant (see e.g. "A second radiator 70 for cooling the second coolant" in paragraph [0051]);
a coolant pump configured to pump the coolant to circulate the coolant in electronic part cooling line (see e.g. "A second pump 205 for causing the second coolant to compulsorily flow may be disposed on the second cooling line 120" in paragraph [0050]); and
a controller (see e.g. "A controller 320" in paragraph [0060]).
Won does not disclose that the controller is configured to: determine whether air bubbles are generated, based on a change in a current of the coolant pump while the coolant is circulating; and control an air bleeding through the coolant pump.
Park, however, in the same field of endeavor, controlling a cooling system of a fuel cell system, discloses a controller (see e.g. "controller 200" in paragraph [0037] and part number 200 in FIG. 1 of Park) configured to:
operate a cooling pump in a pre-run mode after coolant is injected into the cooling system (see e.g. paragraphs [0039]-[0045] of Park). During the pre-run mode, the controller measures the driving current of the cooling pump. A signal corresponding to a decrease in driving current indicates that the circumference of the pump bearing remains in air, whereas the absence of such a current decrease signal indicates that the bearing is immersed in coolant and that the pump has a normal driving environment (see e.g. paragraphs [0046] and [0055]-[0056] of Park). Thus, Park is disclosing using a change in coolant pump current while the pump is operating to determine whether air remains in the coolant path at the pump.
Park further discloses that the controller selectively operates the same cooling pump in an air bubble removal mode after determining that the pump is operating normally (see e.g. paragraphs [0039], [0045]-[0047] and [0054]-[0057] of Park). In the air bubble removal mode, the cooling pump is continuously operated and its rotational speed may be repeatedly increased and decreased to remove air bubbles from the cooling pipe (see e.g. paragraphs [0046]-[0047] and [0054] of Park).
Park also teaches that by controlling this process it is possible to prevent damage to the bearing and to effectively remove air bubbles in a cooling pipe, and thus it is possible to prevent damage to the fuel cell stack due to deterioration (see e.g. paragraph [0045] of Park). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. such that it is configured to determine whether air bubbles are generated, based on a change in a current of the coolant pump while the coolant is circulating; and control an air bleeding through the coolant pump as taught by Park et al. in order to prevent damage to the bearing and fuel cell stack as suggested by Park.
Regarding Claim 11, Won in view of Park discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Won further discloses that the fuel cell system comprises:
a reservoir installed on the electronic part cooling line and connected to the radiator; the reservoir being configured to store the coolant (see e.g. "The second radiator 70 may be connected to a second reservoir 72, in which the second coolant is stored." in paragraph [0051] and part number 72 in FIG. 1).
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US-20220376277-A1) in view of Park et al. (US-20220367888-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itani (US-20150333687-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Won in view of Park discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Won in view of Park does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: monitor the current of the coolant pump while controlling the coolant pump to a target duty.
Itani, however, in the analogous field of controlling an electric motor using current feedback and pulse width modulation (PWM), discloses a controller configured to monitor the current of a motor while controlling the motor to a target duty (see e.g. paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and FIG. 1 of Itani).
Itani further teaches that controlling a motor using current feedback and a target PWM duty allows the motor to be driven stably and efficiently (see e.g. paragraphs [0002], [0012] and [0056] of Itani). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. such that the current of the coolant pump while controlling the coolant pump to a target duty as taught by Itani in order to provide stable and efficient closed loop control of the coolant pump motor.
Regarding Claim 3, Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani discloses the fuel cell system of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Won does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: control the target duty of the coolant pump through a sine wave in a range of 0 % to 100 %, when the change in the current of the coolant pump exceeds a target duty change.
Park, however, discloses changing operation of the coolant pump in response to detecting a change in the driving current of the coolant pump. Specifically, Park discloses that a signal corresponding to a decrease in the driving current indicates that the pump bearing remains in air, and thus the controller changes the driving time or rotational speed of the coolant pump (see e.g. paragraphs [0046] and [0055]-[0056] of Park).
Park also teaches that by controlling this process it is possible to prevent damage to the bearing and to effectively remove air bubbles in a cooling pipe, and thus it is possible to prevent damage to the fuel cell stack due to deterioration (see e.g. paragraph [0045] of Park). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. such that it detects change in the current of the coolant pump when the current exceeds a target duty change as taught by Park et al. in order to prevent damage to the bearing and fuel cell stack as suggested by Park.
Won in view of Park does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: control the target duty of the coolant pump through a sine wave in a range of 0 % to 100 %.
Itani, however, discloses a controlled that is configured to control the target duty of a motor through a sine wave in a range of 0 % to 100 % (see e.g. paragraph [0029] of Itani).
Itani discloses a range that is the same as the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that is the same as the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Itani further teaches that controlling a motor using current feedback and a target PWM duty allows the motor to be driven stably and efficiently (see e.g. paragraphs [0002], [0012] and [0056] of Itani). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. such that the controller is further configured to control the target duty of the coolant pump through a sine wave in a range of 0 % to 100 % as taught by Itani in order to provide stable and efficient closed loop control of the coolant pump motor.
Regarding Claim 5, Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani discloses the fuel cell system of claim 3 (see e.g. claim 3 rejection above).
Won does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: determine whether the air bubbles are being generated in the electronic part cooling line, when the current of the coolant pump follows the target duty, while the target duty of the coolant pump is controlled through the sine wave in the range of 0 % to 100 %.
Park, however, discloses a controller (see e.g. "controller 200" in paragraph [0037] and part number 200 in FIG. 1 of Park) configured to: operate a cooling pump in a pre-run mode after coolant is injected into the cooling system (see e.g. paragraphs [0039]-[0045] of Park). During the pre-run mode, the controller measures the driving current of the cooling pump. A signal corresponding to a decrease in driving current indicates that the circumference of the pump bearing remains in air, whereas the absence of such a current decrease signal indicates that the bearing is immersed in coolant and that the pump has a normal driving environment (see e.g. paragraphs [0046] and [0055]-[0056] of Park). Thus Park is disclosing using a change in coolant pump current while the pump is operating to determine whether air remains in the coolant path at the pump.
Park also teaches that by controlling this process it is possible to prevent damage to the bearing and to effectively remove air bubbles in a cooling pipe, and thus it is possible to prevent damage to the fuel cell stack due to deterioration (see e.g. paragraph [0045] of Park). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. such that it is configured to determine whether air bubbles are generated in the electronic part cooling line as taught by Park et al. in order to prevent damage to the bearing and fuel cell stack as suggested by Park.
Won in view of Park does not disclose that the target duty of the coolant pump is controlled through the sine wave in the range of 0 % to 100 %.
Itani, however, discloses a controlled that is configured to control the target duty of a motor through a sine wave in a range of 0 % to 100 % (see e.g. paragraph [0029] of Itani).
Itani discloses a range that is the same as the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that is the same as the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Itani further teaches that controlling a motor using current feedback and a target PWM duty allows the motor to be driven stably and efficiently (see e.g. paragraphs [0002], [0012] and [0056] of Itani). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. such that the controller is further configured to control the target duty of the coolant pump through a sine wave in a range of 0 % to 100 % as taught by Itani in order to provide stable and efficient closed loop control of the coolant pump motor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US-20220376277-A1) in view of Park et al. (US-20220367888-A1) and further in view of Itani (US-20150333687-A1) as applied to claim3 above, and further in view of Lang et al. (US-20140220468-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani discloses the fuel cell system of claim 3 (see e.g. claim 3 rejections above).
Won does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: determine whether a motor of the coolant pump is operating in an abnormal manner when the current of the coolant pump fails to follow the target duty, while the target duty of the coolant pump is controlled through the sine wave in the range of 0 % to 100 %; and terminate an operation of the fuel cell system responsive to a determination of the abnormal manner.
Park, however, discloses determining whether the coolant pump is operating normally based on the measured driving current of the coolant pump (see e.g. paragraphs [0046] and [0055]-[0056] of Park).
Park also teaches that by controlling this process it is possible to prevent damage to the bearing and to effectively remove air bubbles in a cooling pipe, and thus it is possible to prevent damage to the fuel cell stack due to deterioration (see e.g. paragraph [0045] of Park). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. such that it determines whether the coolant pump is operating normally based on the measured driving current of the coolant pump as taught by Park et al. in order to prevent damage to the bearing and fuel cell stack as suggested by Park.
Won in view of Park does not disclose that the coolant pump is controlled through the sine wave in the range of 0 % to 100 %; and the controller terminates an operation of the fuel cell system responsive to a determination of the abnormal manner.
Itani, however, discloses controlling a motor according to a target PWM duty through a sine wave like waveform ranging from 0% to 100%, while detecting and feeding back the motor current (see e.g. paragraphs [0026] and [0029]-[0031] of Itani).
Thus, the combination of Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani discloses determining whether the motor is operating abnormally when the monitored motor current fails to exhibit the expected response to the target duty while the motor is controlled through the sine wave target duty.
Itani further teaches that controlling a motor using current feedback and a target PWM duty allows the motor to be driven stably and efficiently (see e.g. paragraphs [0002], [0012] and [0056] of Itani). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. such that the controller is further configured to control the target duty of the coolant pump through a sine wave in a range of 0 % to 100 % as taught by Itani in order to provide stable and efficient closed loop control of the coolant pump motor.
Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani does not disclose terminating operation of the fuel cell system responsive to determining that the coolant pump motor is operating abnormally.
Lang, however, in the same field of endeavor of controlling cooling in a fuel cell system, discloses detecting a coolant pump failure and operating the fuel cell system under reduced power conditions until a maximum allowable temperature is reached, at which point the fuel cell system is shut down (see e.g. paragraph [0010] of Lang).
Lang also teaches that by shutting down the fuel cell system sufficient operating challenges such as overheating and the resulting damage can be avoided (see e.g. paragraph [0006] of Lang). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. and further in view of Itani et al. such that the controller terminates operation of the fuel cell system responsive to determining that the coolant pump motor is operating abnormally as taught by Lang et al. in order to prevent overheating and resulting damage to the fuel cell stack when the coolant pump cannot provide the required coolant circulation.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US-20220376277-A1) in view of Park et al. (US-20220367888-A1) and further in view of Itani (US-20150333687-A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US-20200122543-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani discloses the fuel cell system of claim 5 (see e.g. claim 5 rejection above).
Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: control the target duty of the coolant pump to a fixed value for one cycle to determine the change of the current of the coolant pump, responsive to a determination that the air bubbles are being generated in the electronic part cooling line.
Lee, however, in the same field of endeavor, diagnosing coolant conditions in a vehicle using an electric water pump, discloses controlling a water pump at a constant operating condition while acquiring the consumption current of the pump and determining a change in the current (see e.g. paragraphs [0026]-[0028] and [0095]-[0101] of Lee).
Lee also teaches that utilizing this controller allows components as a cooling target to be prevented from being damaged and degraded, and durability lifetime of a water pump may be prevented from being shortened (see e.g. paragraph [0124] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. and further in view of Itani, responsive to the initial air bubble determination disclosed by Park, such that the controller controls the target duty of the coolant pump to a fixed value for one cycle to determine the change of the current of the coolant pump, responsive to a determination that the air bubbles are being generated in the electronic part cooling line as taught by Lee et al. in order to prevent cooling component from being damaged and degraded as suggested by Lee.
Regarding Claim 7, Won in view of Park in view of Itani and further in view of Lee discloses the fuel cell system of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: determine whether the air bubbles are being removed from the electronic part cooling line, when the current of the coolant pump follows the target duty having the fixed value for one cycle.
Lee, however, discloses that the controller is further configured to:
determine whether the air bubbles are being removed from the electronic part cooling line (see e.g. "a current coolant condition may be determined to be an insufficient coolant condition in which a large amount of gas is present at a predetermined level or greater in the coolant line" in paragraph [0099] and paragraphs [0095]-[0099] of Lee), when the current of the coolant pump follows the target duty having the fixed value for one cycle (see e.g. "the consumption power of the water pump may be measured in a section in which the water pump is controlled at constant speed as pump speed" in paragraph [0096] of Lee).
Lee also teaches that utilizing this controller allows components as a cooling target to be prevented from being damaged and degraded, and durability lifetime of a water pump may be prevented from being shortened (see e.g. paragraph [0124] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. and further in view of Itani, responsive to the initial air bubble determination disclosed by Park, such that the controller is further configured to: determine whether the air bubbles are being removed from the electronic part cooling line, when the current of the coolant pump follows the target duty having the fixed value for one cycle. as taught by Lee et al. in order to prevent cooling component from being damaged and degraded as suggested by Lee.
Regarding Claim 8, Won in view of Park in view of Itani and further in view of Lee discloses the fuel cell system of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Won does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: perform the air bleeding by determining whether the air bubbles are not being removed from the electronic part cooling line, when the current of the coolant pump fails to follow the target duty having the fixed value for the one cycle.
Park, however, discloses a controlled that is configured to perform the air bleeding by determining whether the air bubbles are not being removed from the electronic part cooling line (see e.g. paragraphs [0046] and [0055]-[0056] of Park).
Park also teaches that by controlling this process it is possible to prevent damage to the bearing and to effectively remove air bubbles in a cooling pipe, and thus it is possible to prevent damage to the fuel cell stack due to deterioration (see e.g. paragraph [0045] of Park). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. such that it is configured to perform the air bleeding by determining whether the air bubbles are not being removed from the electronic part cooling line as taught by Park et al. in order to prevent damage to the bearing and fuel cell stack as suggested by Park.
Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani does not disclose that the current of the coolant pump fails to follow the target duty having the fixed value for the one cycle.
Lee, however, discloses controlling a water pump at a constant operating condition while acquiring the consumption current of the pump and determining a change in the current (see e.g. paragraphs [0026]-[0028] and [0095]-[0101] of Lee).
Lee also teaches that utilizing this controller allows components as a cooling target to be prevented from being damaged and degraded, and durability lifetime of a water pump may be prevented from being shortened (see e.g. paragraph [0124] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. and further in view of Itani, responsive to the initial air bubble determination disclosed by Park, such that the controller controls the target duty of the coolant pump to a fixed value for one cycle to determine the change of the current of the coolant pump, responsive to a determination that the air bubbles are being generated in the electronic part cooling line as taught by Lee et al. in order to prevent cooling component from being damaged and degraded as suggested by Lee.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US-20220376277-A1) in view of Park et al. (US-20220367888-A1) in view of Itani (US-20150333687-A1) and further in view of Lee et al. (US-20200122543-A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US-20180034087-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Won in view of Park in view of Itani and further in view of Lee discloses the fuel cell system of claim 8 (see e.g. claim 8 rejection above).
Won in view of Park does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: control the target duty of the coolant pump through a (-) sine wave; and perform the air bleeding responsive to a terminating sequence of the fuel cell system being commenced.
Itani, discloses a controller that is configured to control the target duty of the coolant pump through a (-) sine wave (see e.g. paragraph [0024] and FIG. 4 of Itani).
Itani further teaches that controlling a motor using current feedback and a target PWM duty allows the motor to be driven stably and efficiently (see e.g. paragraphs [0002], [0012] and [0056] of Itani). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. such that the controller control the target duty of the coolant pump through a (-) sine wave as taught by Itani in order to provide stable and efficient closed loop control of the coolant pump motor.
Won in view of Park in view of Itani and further in view of Lee does not disclose that the controller is configured to perform the air bleeding responsive to a terminating sequence of the fuel cell system being commenced.
Watanabe, however, in the same field of endeavor, methods for controlling fuel cell systems, discloses a controller that performs air bleeding responsive to a terminating sequence of the fuel cell system being commenced (see e.g. paragraph [0080] of Watanabe).
Watanabe also teaches that in performing this function at the start of operation of the fuel cell system the pumps can operate normally and coolant can flow through the coolant lines which leads to flexibility in the layout of the fuel cell system (see e.g. paragraphs [0081]-[0082] of Watanabe). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. in view of Itani and further in view of Lee et al. such that the controller performs air bleeding responsive to a terminating sequence of the fuel cell system being commenced as taught by Watanabe et al. in order to allow for coolant to readily flow through the system at start up as suggested by Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 10, Won in view of Park in view of Itani in view of Lee and further in view of Watanabe discloses the fuel cell system of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Won in view of Park and further in view of Itani does not disclose that the controller is further configured to: control the target duty of the coolant pump to the fixed value for the one cycle; determine the change of the current of the coolant pump; and perform the air bleeding until the current of the coolant pump follows the target duty having the fixed value.
Lee, however, discloses a controller configured to: control the target duty of the coolant pump to the fixed value for the one cycle; determine the change of the current of the coolant pump (see e.g. paragraphs [0026]-[0028] and [0095]-[0101] of Lee).
Lee also teaches that utilizing this controller allows components as a cooling target to be prevented from being damaged and degraded, and durability lifetime of a water pump may be prevented from being shortened (see e.g. paragraph [0124] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. and further in view of Itani such that the controller is configured to control the target duty of the coolant pump to the fixed value for the one cycle; determine the change of the current of the coolant pump as taught by Lee et al. in order to prevent cooling component from being damaged and degraded as suggested by Lee.
Won in view of Park in view of Itani and further in view of Lee does not disclose that the controller perform the air bleeding until the current of the coolant pump follows the target duty having the fixed value.
Watanabe, however, discloses a controller that performs the air bleeding until the current of the coolant pump follows the target duty having the fixed value (see e.g. paragraphs [0079]-[0083] and [0095]-[0099] of Watanabe).
Watanabe also teaches that in performing this function at the start of operation of the fuel cell system the pumps can operate normally and coolant can flow through the coolant lines which leads to flexibility in the layout of the fuel cell system (see e.g. paragraphs [0081]-[0082] of Watanabe). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Won et al. in view of Park et al. in view of Itani and further in view of Lee et al. such that the controller performs air bleeding until the current of the coolant pump follows the target duty having the fixed value as taught by Watanabe et al. in order to allow for coolant to readily flow through the system at start up as suggested by Watanabe.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US-20220376277-A1) in view of Park et al. (US-20220367888-A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jeong (US-20200180393-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Won in view of Park discloses the fuel cell system of claim 11 (see e.g. claim 11 rejection above).
Won in view of Park does not disclose that the reservoir includes: a reservoir valve open to discharge air when the air bleeding is performed.
Jeong, however, in the same field of endeavor, cooling systems for fuel cells, discloses a reservoir tank comprising coolant (see e.g. " a reservoir tank into which the coolant may be injected to be stored" in paragraph [0007] of Jeong) that includes: a reservoir valve open to discharge air when the air bleeding is performed (see e.g. "The jiggle valve 240 may be connected to the reservoir tank 140... and may be configured to discharge air in a coolant included in the battery cooling pipe 250 to the reservoir tank 140" in paragraph [0028] of Jeong).
Jeong also teaches that the reservoir valve prevents air from being introduced into the cooling line and thus allows for coolant to circulate in the cooling line and effectively cool the battery (see e.g. paragraph [0028] of Jeong). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the reservoir of Won et al. in view of Park et al. such that it includes a reservoir valve open to discharge air when the air bleeding is performed as taught by Jeong in order to effectively cool the battery as suggested by Jeong.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US-20220376277-A1) in view of Park et al. (US-20220367888-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henke (US-20180034390-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Won in view of Park discloses the fuel cell system of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Won in view of Park does not disclose that the coolant pump includes: a motor; and
four switching devices, and wherein the motor and the four switching devices comprise a full-bridge circuit to bi-directionally control a rotating operation of the motor.
Henke, however, in the same field of endeavor, electronically controlling a vehicle water pump. discloses a coolant pump (see e.g. "mechanical pump part 18" in paragraph [0025] and part number 18 in FIG. 1 of Henke) which includes:
a motor (see e.g. " drive motor 16" in paragraph [0025] and part number 16 in FIG. 1 of Henke); and
four switching devices (see e.g. "four power semiconductors T1 to T4 arranged in a so-called H-bridge" in paragraph [0026] and part numbers T1-T4 in FIG. 1 of Henke), and
wherein the motor and the four switching devices comprise a full-bridge circuit (see e.g. " T1 to T4 arranged in a so-called H-bridge" in paragraph [0026] and part numbers T1-T4 in FIG. 1 of Henke) to bi-directionally control a rotating operation of the motor (see e.g. "Low-voltage drive motors typically have a high inductivity of the motor coils 17 of the drive motor 16. " in paragraph [0025] and " the energizing of the motor coils 17 can be reversed in polarity, i.e., the direction of energizing of the motor coils 17 can be switched over or reversed" in paragraph [0026] of Henke; the switches control which direction the motor rotates bi-directionally).
Henke also teaches that this is a simple method for controlling a pump and requires little computation effort in the controller (see e.g. paragraphs [0005] of Henke). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coolant pump of Won et al. in view of Park et al. such that the coolant pump includes: a motor; and four switching devices, and wherein the motor and the four switching devices comprise a full-bridge circuit to bi-directionally control a rotating operation of the motor as taught by Henke in order to control the pump in a simple and effective way as suggested by Henke.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Edwards et al. (US-20160242326-A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights