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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/04/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 10-20) in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites on line 1 “withing” which should read “within”. Claim 19 recites on line 1 “withing” which should read “within”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the following:
“identifying an application power request for the hybrid system”
“determining a relationship between the application power request and an optimal membrane life power for the fuel cell power device”
“directing the fuel cell power device to operate between a first power associated with the optimal membrane life power and a second power”
These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because nothing in the claim element that precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(III). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a controller to perform the identifying, determining, and directing steps. The claim teaches the step of “directing the fuel cell power device to operate between first power…and second power ”. This appears to be well understood routine and conventional and therefore would not be a practical application and the claim overall remains an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11-7 and 19-20 are rejected because they do not remedy the deficiencies.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim15 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.
Claim 15 recites when the application power request is greater than the optimal membrane life power
Claim 15 recites “when the application power request is greater than the optimal membrane life power and the second power includes one of a minimum power generated or zero-power power generated by the fuel cell power device.” However, Claim 10 which Claim 15 depends on recites “wherein the application power request is at a power level between the optimal membrane life power and the second power.” The application power request is contradictory between Claims 10 and 15. Dependent claims which are contradictory to the claim on which it depends do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to which of the contradictory features are required by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 10-14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US-20220123337-A1) in view of Rollag et al. (US-20200028189-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Sakai teaches:
A method of operating a hybrid system, the method comprising (power supply method for a hybrid fuel cell and power storage device in a vehicle, see [0012]):
identifying an application power request for the hybrid system (the control part 130 derives the fuel cell system (FCS) required power, see [0088] and reproduced Fig. 9 below),
wherein the hybrid system includes (hybrid fuel cell and power storage device in a vehicle, see [0012])
a fuel cell power device,
and an electric drive unit
Sakai is silent toward the power storage device battery system 40 (see [0030]-[0031]) being high-voltage and therefore does not teach:
a high-voltage battery,
To solve the same problem of designing fuel cell assembly for a vehicle (see Abstract), Rollag teaches that “the fuel cell assembly 12 can include a high-voltage battery 76 (see FIG. 2) in electrical communication with the fuel cell stack 34 to act as a power sink or a power supply to alternatively store or supplement DC power provided by the fuel cell stack 34,” see [0087].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have included a high-voltage battery for the power storage device of Sakai to operate as a power sink or a power supply.
Sakai does not teach:
each electrically connected to a high-voltage bus;
To solve the same problem of designing fuel cell assembly for a vehicle (see Abstract), Rollag teaches electrically connecting the fuel cell, traction motor suitable for propelling the vehicle (i.e. electric drive unit), and high-voltage battery via a high-voltage bus, see [0087]. Rollag further teaches the high-voltage bus is capable of being properly handling the voltages to energize the electric devices connected thereto, see [0087].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a high-voltage bus to electrically connect the devices above to properly handle the voltages to energize the electric devices connected thereto.
determining a relationship between the application power request and an optimal membrane life power for the fuel cell power device (The fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power (i.e. optimal membrane life power) is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS, see [0096]. “The control part 130 determines whether the FCS required power is less than the FCS lower limit power,” see [0090]. The FCS required power is based on the power required in the electric vehicle 1, see [0050]);
and directing the fuel cell power device to operate between a first power associated with the optimal membrane life power and a second power (The claimed first power corresponds with Sakai’s derived fuel cell system (FCS) upper limit power and the FCS lower limit power. Sakai teaches the fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS, see [0096]. The second power is interpreted to be any power lower than that of the determined FCS lower limit power. Note, the claim as written does not require the power of the fuel cell to be applied between the first and second power.),
wherein the application power request is at a power level between the optimal membrane life power and the second power (reproduced Fig. 9 below indicates a state in which the required power is lower than the FCS lower limit power).
PNG
media_image1.png
1086
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11 and 12, modified Sakai teaches:
wherein the first power is within a predetermined range that includes the optimal membrane life power (The fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power (i.e. optimal membrane life power) is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS, see [0096]. “The control part 130 determines whether the FCS required power is less than the FCS lower limit power,” see [0090]. The FCS required power is based on the power required in the electric vehicle 1, see [0050]. The claimed first power corresponds with Sakai’s derived fuel cell system (FCS) upper limit power and the FCS lower limit power. Sakai teaches the fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS, see [0096].)
Modified Sakai does not necessarily teach the following:
and the optimal membrane life power is determined based on a function of an electric power generated by the fuel cell power device and a membrane lifetime energy of the fuel cell power device.
(per Claim 12) wherein the optimal membrane life power corresponds to an optimal electric power that produces a maximum membrane life energy and the membrane lifetime energy is determined based on a relationship between the electric power and membrane life.
However, Sakai teaches the fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS in an iterative manner, see [0096]. The system variables of temperature and humidity have a relationship with the electric power the fuel cell is generating, see [0096]. This disclosure indicates the deterioration of the membrane over time with respect to the and ultimately the electric power generated by the fuel cell is a result effective variable.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the electric power and corresponding conditions of temperature and humidity to prevent deterioration of the membrane.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the following claim limitations without undue experimentation:
and the optimal membrane life power is determined based on a function of an electric power generated by the fuel cell power device and a membrane lifetime energy of the fuel cell power device.
(per Claim 12) wherein the optimal membrane life power corresponds to an optimal electric power that produces a maximum membrane life energy and the membrane lifetime energy is determined based on a relationship between the electric power and membrane life.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Sakai teaches:
wherein the application power request is analyzed over a period of time to determine when to operate between the optimal membrane life power and the second power (The process of the control part shown in reproduced Fig. 9 above which includes determining the operational power of the fuel cell system is taught to be executed repetitively at a predetermined interval, see [0087]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Sakai teaches:
including directing a fuel cell generated power to the high-voltage battery when the application power request is less than the optimal membrane life power (see S110 and S120 in reproduced Fig. 9 above and [0093])
and the second power includes one of a minimum power generated or zero-power power generated by the fuel cell power device (the second power is interpreted to be all the power less than that of the therefore the interpreted second power includes at least one of minimum power generated or zero-power power generated).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Sakai teaches:
wherein a time to operate between the optimal membrane life power and the second power is determined based on a battery capacity in relation to the application power request (The BAT limit value set based on the power which the battery 42 is able to store (i.e. capacity), see [0080] and Fig. 9 reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 18, Sakai teaches:
A method of operating a hybrid system, the method comprising (power supply method for a hybrid fuel cell and power storage device in a vehicle, see [0012]):
identifying an application power request for the hybrid system (the control part 130 derives the fuel cell system (FCS) required power, see [0088] and reproduced Fig. 9 below),
wherein the hybrid system includes (hybrid fuel cell and power storage device in a vehicle, see [0012])
a fuel cell power device,
and an electric drive unit
Sakai is silent toward the power storage device battery system 40 (see [0030]-[0031]) being high-voltage and therefore does not teach:
a high-voltage battery,
To solve the same problem of designing fuel cell assembly for a vehicle (see Abstract), Rollag teaches that “the fuel cell assembly 12 can include a high-voltage battery 76 (see FIG. 2) in electrical communication with the fuel cell stack 34 to act as a power sink or a power supply to alternatively store or supplement DC power provided by the fuel cell stack 34,” see [0087].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have included a high-voltage battery for the power storage device of Sakai to operate as a power sink or a power supply.
Sakai does not teach:
each electrically connected to a high-voltage bus;
To solve the same problem of designing fuel cell assembly for a vehicle (see Abstract), Rollag teaches electrically connecting the fuel cell, traction motor suitable for propelling the vehicle (i.e. electric drive unit), and high-voltage battery via a high-voltage bus, see [0087]. Rollag further teaches the high-voltage bus is capable of being properly handling the voltages to energize the electric devices connected thereto, see [0087].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a high-voltage bus to electrically connect the devices above to properly handle the voltages to energize the electric devices connected thereto.
determining a relationship between the application power request and an optimal membrane life power for the fuel cell power device (The fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power (i.e. optimal membrane life power) is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS, see [0096]. “The control part 130 determines whether the FCS required power is less than the FCS lower limit power,” see [0090]. The FCS required power is based on the power required in the electric vehicle 1, see [0050]);
Modified Sakai does not necessarily teach the following:
and the optimal membrane life power is determined based on a function of an electric power generated by the fuel cell power device and a membrane lifetime energy of the fuel cell power device.
However, Sakai teaches the fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS in an iterative manner, see [0096]. The system variables of temperature and humidity have a relationship with the electric power the fuel cell is generating, see [0096]. This disclosure indicates the deterioration of the membrane over time with respect to the and ultimately the electric power generated by the fuel cell is a result effective variable.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the electric power and corresponding conditions of temperature and humidity to prevent deterioration of the membrane.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the following claim limitations without undue experimentation:
and the optimal membrane life power is determined based on a function of an electric power generated by the fuel cell power device and a membrane lifetime energy of the fuel cell power device.
Modified Sakai further teaches:
and directing the fuel cell power device to operate between a first power associated with the optimal membrane life power and a second power (The claimed first power corresponds with Sakai’s derived fuel cell system (FCS) upper limit power and the FCS lower limit power. Sakai teaches the fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS, see [0096]. The second power is interpreted to be any power lower than that of the determined FCS lower limit power. Note, the claim as written does not require the power of the fuel cell to be applied between the first and second power.),
wherein the application power request is at a power level between the optimal membrane life power and the second power (reproduced Fig. 9 below indicates a state in which the required power is lower than the FCS lower limit power);
and directing excess power generated by the fuel cell power device to the high-voltage battery (see S110 and S120 in reproduced Fig. 9 above and [0093]).
Regarding Claim 19,
wherein the first power is within a predetermined range that includes the optimal membrane life power (The fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power (i.e. optimal membrane life power) is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS, see [0096]. “The control part 130 determines whether the FCS required power is less than the FCS lower limit power,” see [0090]. The FCS required power is based on the power required in the electric vehicle 1, see [0050]. The claimed first power corresponds with Sakai’s derived fuel cell system (FCS) upper limit power and the FCS lower limit power. Sakai teaches the fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS, see [0096].)
Modified Sakai does not necessarily teach the following:
wherein the optimal membrane life power corresponds to an optimal electric power that produces a maximum membrane life energy and the membrane lifetime energy is determined based on a relationship between the electric power and membrane life.
However, Sakai teaches the fuel cell system (FCS) lower limit power is suitably optimized by minimizing the deterioration of the membrane by considering the humidity or temperature of the FCS in an iterative manner, see [0096]. The system variables of temperature and humidity have a relationship with the electric power the fuel cell is generating, see [0096]. This disclosure indicates the deterioration of the membrane over time with respect to the and ultimately the electric power generated by the fuel cell is a result effective variable.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the electric power and corresponding conditions of temperature and humidity to prevent deterioration of the membrane.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the following claim limitations without undue experimentation:
wherein the optimal membrane life power corresponds to an optimal electric power that produces a maximum membrane life energy and the membrane lifetime energy is determined based on a relationship between the electric power and membrane life.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Sakai teaches:
wherein a time to operate between the optimal membrane life power and the second power is determined based on a battery capacity in relation to the application power request (The BAT limit value set based on the power which the battery 42 is able to store (i.e. capacity), see [0080] and Fig. 9 reproduced above).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US-20220123337-A1) in view of Rollag et al. (US-20200028189-A1) as applied to Claim 10 above and in further view of Jang et al. (US-20060292405-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Sakai is silent toward:
including charging the high-voltage battery with an external power source.
To solve the same problem of designing a fuel cell system for a vehicle (see [0027]), Jang teaches charging an energy storage device via excess power from the fuel cell system or by plugging into a power source such as a garage outlet, see [0027]. Jang further teaches charging the energy storage device externally allows for the later use in powering the electric vehicle, see [0027].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have designed the high voltage battery of modified Sakai to be able to be charged externally as taught by Jang for use in powering the electric vehicle.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takamori et al. (US-20080096066-A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights