DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system comprise one or more out of a level of degradation of the fuel cell system, fuel consumption by the fuel cell system, an auxiliary load, efficiency of the fuel cell system, power of the fuel cell stack, and a state of charge (SoC) of an electrical storage system (ESS) of the fuel cell vehicle” is improper alternative claiming. Alternative claiming may be set forth as "a material (or at least one material) selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is (or is at least one of) A, B, or C" see MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system comprise one or more out of a level of degradation of the fuel cell system, fuel consumption by the fuel cell system, an auxiliary load, efficiency of the fuel cell system, power of the fuel cell stack, or a state of charge (SoC) of an electrical storage system (ESS) of the fuel cell vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system comprise one or more out of a level of degradation of the fuel cell system, fuel consumption by the fuel cell system, an auxiliary load, efficiency of the fuel cell system, power of the fuel cell stack, and a state of charge (SoC) of an electrical storage system (ESS) of the fuel cell vehicle” is improper alternative claiming. Alternative claiming may be set forth as "a material (or at least one material) selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is (or is at least one of) A, B, or C" see MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system comprise one or more out of a level of degradation of the fuel cell system, fuel consumption by the fuel cell system, an auxiliary load, efficiency of the fuel cell system, power of the fuel cell stack, or a state of charge (SoC) of an electrical storage system (ESS) of the fuel cell vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 2-7 are 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.
6. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the target temperature" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the target coolant inlet temperature" as there is antecedent basis.
7. Claims 2-7 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
9. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the fuel cell vehicle" as there is antecedent basis.
10. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the target temperature" in lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the target coolant inlet temperature" as there is antecedent basis.
11. Claims 8 and 9-19 are 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.
12. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fuel cell vehicle" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a fuel cell vehicle".
13. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the coolant" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a coolant".
14. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the target temperature" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the target coolant inlet temperature" as there is antecedent basis.
15. Claims 9-19 are rejected as depending from claim 8.
16. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the target temperature" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the target coolant inlet temperature" as there is antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsusue et al. (US2018/0111504) as cited in IDS dated 4/3/25.
Regarding claim 1, Matsusue discloses a fuel cell vehicle (1, Fig. 1, [0045]), comprising: a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack configured to generate power by electrochemical reaction(fuel cell 20, Fig. 1, [0045]); a cooling system comprising a coolant circulating in the cooling system and configured to dissipate heat generated as a result of the electrochemical reaction(10, Fig.1, [0049]); and a control system comprising processing circuitry(control device 60 includes a central processing unit 61, Fig. 1, [0051]) that is configured to: obtain a value of power output of the fuel cell system, the value of the power output indicating a power demand from the fuel cell system during operation of the fuel cell vehicle (predicted amount of generated power P [0058]); and repeatedly adjust a value of a target coolant inlet temperature of the coolant at a coolant inlet of the fuel cell stack to vary between a first target temperature level and a second target temperature level (Fig. 7C, Tta (low target temperature) to Tu (threshold value)), in dependence on the value of the power output (change of a predicted temperature T of the refrigerant is calculated based on the change of the predicted amount of emitted heat Ph, [0061], [0065]) and so as to optimize a duration of time during which the target temperature is different from the first target temperature level and optimize a value of one or more parameters of a plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system (minimize deterioration in power generation performance of the fuel cell 20 due to excessive temperature rise [0066], a time at which the temperature rise suppressing process stops, that is, a time at which the target coolant inlet temperature of the refrigerant is returned from the low target temperature Tta to the normal target temperature Tt, [0068]).
Regarding claim 3, Matsusue discloses the value of the power output of the fuel cell system is a predicted value of the power output of the fuel cell system([0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Matsusue discloses the predicted value is obtained based on data on a route assigned to the fuel cell vehicle([0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Matsusue discloses the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system comprise one or more out of a level of degradation of the fuel cell system, efficiency of the fuel cell system, or power of the fuel cell stack (power generation performance [0066]).
Regarding claim 8, Matsusue discloses a method of operating a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack (vehicle 1, Fig. 1, [0045], fuel cell 20, Fig. 1, [0045], [0005]), the method comprising: obtaining a value of power output of the fuel cell system, the value of the power output indicating a power demand from the fuel cell system during operation of a fuel cell vehicle (predicted amount of generated power P [0058]); and repeatedly adjusting a value of a target coolant inlet temperature of a coolant at a coolant inlet of the fuel cell stack to vary between a first target temperature level and a second target temperature level (Fig. 7C, Tta (low target temperature) to Tu (threshold value)), in dependence on the value of the power output (change of a predicted temperature T of the refrigerant is calculated based on the change of the predicted amount of emitted heat Ph, [0061], [0065]) and so as to optimize a duration of time during which the target coolant inlet temperature is different from the first target temperature level and optimize a value of one or more parameters of a plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system (minimize deterioration in power generation performance of the fuel cell 20 due to excessive temperature rise [0066], a time at which the temperature rise suppressing process stops, that is, a time at which the target temperature of the refrigerant is returned from the low target temperature Tta to the normal target temperature Tt, [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Matsusue discloses the value of the power output of the fuel cell system is a predicted value of the power output of the fuel cell system([0058]).
Regarding claim 12, Matsusue discloses the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system comprise one or more out of a level of degradation of the fuel cell system, efficiency of the fuel cell system, or power of the fuel cell stack (power generation performance [0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Matsusue discloses obtaining the value of power output of the fuel cell system comprises determining the value of power output of the fuel cell system([0058]).
Regarding claim 15, Matsusue discloses further comprising controlling an air pressure at a cathode of the fuel cell stack as the value of the target coolant inlet temperature is adjusted(claim 7, [0071]).
Regarding claim 16, Matsusue discloses a control system for controlling the fuel cell system of the fuel cell vehicle(control device 60, Fig. 1, [0051]), the control system comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the method of claim 8 (central process unit 61, Fig. 1, [0051]).
Regarding claim 17, Matsusue discloses a fuel cell vehicle comprising the control system of and/or being in communication with the control system of claim 16([0045], [0051]).
Regarding claim 18, Matsusue discloses a computer program product comprising instructions, which, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 8([0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 19, Matsusue discloses a computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 8([0051]-[0052]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsusue et al. (US2018/0111504) as cited in IDS dated 4/3/25 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Matsusue discloses an amount of emitted heat of a fuel cell increases as an amount of generated power of the fuel cell increases([0011]). Matsusue discloses even when the temperature of the refrigerant starts increasing at time t2, the actual temperature Ta is prevented from exceeding the threshold value Tu at time t3, and then the actual temperature Ta decreases to the normal target temperature Tt at time t4 prior to time t5 and in this way, since the temperature rise suppressing process is performed before the temperature rise of the refrigerant starts, it is possible to effectively suppress excessive temperature rise of the fuel cell 20 and to minimize deterioration in power generation performance of the fuel cell 20 due to excessive temperature rise(Fig. 7C, [0066]). Matsusue does not explicitly disclose the processing circuitry of the control system is configured to, responsive to the value of the power output being above a threshold level, reversibly increase the value of the target coolant inlet temperature to a third target temperature level, wherein the third target temperature level is above the first target temperature level and below the second target temperature level or the third target temperature level is equal to the second target temperature level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the fuel cell vehicle of Matsusue with the processing circuitry of the control system is configured to, responsive to the value of the power output being above a threshold level, reversibly increase the value of the target coolant inlet temperature to a third target temperature level, wherein the third target temperature level is above the first target temperature level and below the second target temperature level or the third target temperature level is equal to the second target temperature level since Matsusue discloses the actual temperature is prevented from exceeding the threshold value as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
23. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsusue et al. (US2018/0111504) as cited in IDS dated 4/3/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Puts et al. (US2025/0100344).
Regarding claim 5, Matsusue does not explicitly disclose the processing circuitry of the control system is configured to optimize the duration of time during which the value of the target coolant inlet temperature is different from the first target temperature level by using a cost function model, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to apply the cost function model to minimize the duration of time during which the target coolant inlet temperature is different from the first target temperature level, while optimizing a value of at least one parameter of the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system.
Puts teaches a thermal management system for an electric vehicle includes a thermal system with a control device(abstract). Puts teaches the control device computes a cost function from the inputs to generate intermediate outputs, computes optimal control setpoints based on the intermediate outputs, and computes the lower level control outputs based on the optimal control setpoints for operating the thermal management system(abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fuel cell vehicle of Matsusue with the processing circuitry of the control system is configured to optimize the duration of time during which the value of the target coolant inlet temperature is different from the first target temperature level by using a cost function model, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to apply the cost function model to minimize the duration of time during which the target coolant inlet temperature is different from the first target temperature level, while optimizing a value of at least one parameter of the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system since Puts teaches cost function for operating thermal management system for electric vehicles, as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
24. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsusue et al. (US2018/0111504) as cited in IDS dated 4/3/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farnsworth (US 2022/0306128) as cited in IDS dated 4/3/25.
Regarding claim 7, Matsusue does not explicitly disclose the first target temperature level comprises 60° C. and the second target temperature level comprises 80° C., or wherein the first target temperature level comprises 60° C. and the second target temperature level comprises 75° C.
Farnsworth teaches methods and systems may provide for technology to predict a future increase in power demand on a fuel cell based on route data associated with a vehicle powered by the fuel cell and reduce an operating temperature of the fuel cell prior to the future increase in power demand(abstract). Farnsworth teaches the electric vehicle 10 may automatically detect the upcoming incline 12 based on route data such as, for example, crowd sourced eHorizon map data received via a wireless link(Fig. 1, [0010]). Farnsworth teaches the upcoming incline 12 may increase the power demand on the fuel cell, where the increased power demand could cause the operating temperature of the fuel cell to exceed an upper limit (e.g., 80° C.) of an optimal/target range (e.g., 60-80° C.) ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fuel cell vehicle of Matsusue with the first target temperature level comprises 60° C. and the second target temperature level comprises 80° C. as taught by Farnsworth as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
25. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsusue et al. (US2018/0111504) as cited in IDS dated 4/3/25 as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, Matsusue discloses an amount of emitted heat of a fuel cell increases as an amount of generated power of the fuel cell increases([0011]). Matsusue discloses even when the temperature of the refrigerant starts increasing at time t2, the actual temperature Ta is prevented from exceeding the threshold value Tu at time t3, and then the actual temperature Ta decreases to the normal target temperature Tt at time t4 prior to time t5 and in this way, since the temperature rise suppressing process is performed before the temperature rise of the refrigerant starts, it is possible to effectively suppress excessive temperature rise of the fuel cell 20 and to minimize deterioration in power generation performance of the fuel cell 20 due to excessive temperature rise(Fig. 7C, [0066]). Matsusue does not explicitly disclose further comprising, responsive to the value of the power output being above a threshold level, reversibly increasing the value of the target coolant inlet temperature to a third target temperature level, wherein the third target temperature level is above the first target temperature level and below the second target temperature level or the third target temperature level is equal to the second target temperature level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of Matsusue with further comprising, responsive to the value of the power output being above a threshold level, reversibly increasing the value of the target coolant inlet temperature to a third target temperature level, wherein the third target temperature level is above the first target temperature level and below the second target temperature level or the third target temperature level is equal to the second target temperature level since Matsusue discloses the actual temperature is prevented from exceeding the threshold value as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
26. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsusue et al. (US2018/0111504) as cited in IDS dated 4/3/25 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Puts et al. (US2025/0100344).
Regarding claim 11, Matsusue does not explicitly disclose the method comprises optimizing the duration of time during which the target coolant inlet temperature is different from the first target temperature level by using a cost function model, and wherein the method comprises applying the cost function model to minimize the duration of time during which the target coolant inlet temperature is different from the first target temperature level, while optimizing the value of the one or more parameters of the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system.
Puts teaches a thermal management system for an electric vehicle includes a thermal system with a control device(abstract). Puts teaches the control device computes a cost function from the inputs to generate intermediate outputs, computes optimal control setpoints based on the intermediate outputs, and computes the lower level control outputs based on the optimal control setpoints for operating the thermal management system(abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Matsusue with the method comprises optimizing the duration of time during which the target coolant inlet temperature is different from the first target temperature level by using a cost function model, and wherein the method comprises applying the cost function model to minimize the duration of time during which the target coolant inlet temperature is different from the first target temperature level, while optimizing the value of the one or more parameters of the plurality of parameters related to operation of the fuel cell system since Puts teaches cost function for operating thermal management system for electric vehicles, as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
27. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsusue et al. (US2018/0111504) as cited in IDS dated 4/3/25 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Farnsworth (US 2022/0306128) as cited in IDS dated 4/3/25.
Regarding claim 13, Matsusue does not explicitly disclose the first target temperature level comprises 60° C. and the second target temperature level comprises 80° C., or wherein the first target temperature level comprises 60° C. and the second target temperature level comprises 75° C.
Farnsworth teaches methods and systems may provide for technology to predict a future increase in power demand on a fuel cell based on route data associated with a vehicle powered by the fuel cell and reduce an operating temperature of the fuel cell prior to the future increase in power demand(abstract). Farnsworth teaches the electric vehicle 10 may automatically detect the upcoming incline 12 based on route data such as, for example, crowd sourced eHorizon map data received via a wireless link(Fig. 1, [0010]). Farnsworth teaches the upcoming incline 12 may increase the power demand on the fuel cell, where the increased power demand could cause the operating temperature of the fuel cell to exceed an upper limit (e.g., 80° C.) of an optimal/target range (e.g., 60-80° C.) ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Matsusue with the first target temperature level comprises 60° C. and the second target temperature level comprises 80° C. as taught by Farnsworth as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights