DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 4, 2025. Claims 1, 13 and 19 – 20 have been amended, claim 12 has been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references used in the current rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Kakefu et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0031916 A1 to Ozeki (herein after “Ozeki publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 19 and 20,
the Kakefu et al. publication discloses a system for controlling a power source including a fuel cell and a battery provided on a vehicle, the system comprising:
a decision unit (50) that decides a control parameter for power generation amount of the fuel cell based on whether the vehicle is a vehicle that mainly travels on a highway or a vehicle that mainly travels on an ordinary road. (See pages 7 – 8.)
The Kakefu et al. publication, however, fails to disclose an instruction unit that instructs the vehicle to reprogram a control device of the power source provided on the vehicle such that the fuel cell is controlled based on the control parameter decided by the decision unit.
The Ozeki publication discloses “an electronic apparatus having a fuel cell built into its body, a fuel tank unit connectable to the surrounding wall of a housing for the body, and a method of controlling a power supply for the apparatus.” (See ¶3.)
“The power supply controller 16, which supplies electrical power to each section of the electronic apparatus 1, provides driving control of the DMFC unit 17. In addition, the power supply controller 16, which includes a setting register for making various settings related to the use of a plurality of fuel tanks, updates the setting values under the control of the power supply management utility.” (See ¶32.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests an instruction unit that instructs the vehicle to reprogram a control device of the power source provided on the vehicle such that the fuel cell is controlled based on the control parameter decided by the decision unit.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Kakefu et al. publication with an instruction unit that instructs the vehicle to reprogram a control device of the power source provided on the vehicle such that the fuel cell is controlled based on the control parameter decided by the decision unit, as suggested by the Ozeki publication, in order to facilitate distributing supply power to the auxiliary equipment and other components of the vehicle.
As to claim 2,
the Kakefu et al. publication discloses an acquisition unit (35, 52) that acquires information indicating a driving history of the vehicle, wherein the decision unit decides whether the vehicle is a vehicle that mainly travels on a highway or a vehicle that mainly travels on an ordinary road based on the driving history. (See page 4, where “the accelerator sensor 35 [operates as an acquisition unit that acquires information indicating a driving history of the vehicle by measuring] the amount of depression, that is, the accelerator opening Wt, and the measurement signal is sent to the control unit 50”; see also pages 7 – 8, where the decision unit makes decisions based on whether the vehicle is a vehicle that mainly travels on a highway or a vehicle that mainly travels on an ordinary road based on the driving history.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Kakefu et al. publication in view of Ozeki publication, and further in view of JP 2004288530 A to Aso (herein after “Aso publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 14,
the modified Kakefu et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the decision unit decides the control parameter further based on at least one of a scheduled traveling route of the vehicle and a current location of the vehicle.
The Aso publication, however, discloses “control unit 8 suppl[ying] one or both of the generated power of the fuel cell stack 1 and the discharged power of the secondary battery 7 to the heating device 6 in addition to the control of repeating the charging mode and the discharging mode. Control for warming up the fuel cell stack 1 and the secondary battery 7 due to heat generation may be used together.” (See ¶53.)
“[B]ased on the current position information acquired in step S31, the control unit 8 completes the warm-up control process and starts running after the fuel cell system is started.” (See ¶56.) Such disclosure suggests the decision unit deciding the control parameter based on at least a current location of the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Kakefu et al. publication so that the decision unit decides the control parameter based on at least a current location of the vehicle, as suggested by the Kakefu et al. publication, in order to facilitate distributing supply power to the auxiliary equipment and other components of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 11 and 15 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666