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 .
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method for “receiving” a value, “comparing” that value to a threshold, and “selecting” between two modes. The collection and manipulation of information that already exists is the abstract idea of either a mathematical concept (using comparisons to determine which mode is best) or a mental process (“including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”). MPEP §2106.04.
Regarding the mathematical concept, an abstract idea includes “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations”. MPEP §2164.04(a)(2)(I)(A). Obtaining information and using mathematical equations to categorize its value (above/below a threshold) is an abstract idea. The claim does not create anything – it just observes/senses what is already present, makes a comparison, and then selects between two modes. There is no structure associated with or consequence to the mode selection. Claim 1 does not recite any fuel cells (see claim 10) or any effect that the selection has. Simply naming two modes does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of selecting a mode.
The claim is directed to the collection and categorization of information. This is an abstract idea.
Regarding the mental process, “method which can be performed mentally, or are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas…” MPEP §2164.04(a)(2)(III). “Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions.” Id. Observing total power values that already exist and making comparisons and assigning one of two modes to the result is not patentable.
“Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite the mental process performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” Id. That the method is to be autonomous does not change the analysis that the evaluation is an abstract idea.
For comparison, the Applicants are directed to claim 17 (or dependent claims 2-9), which recites that the computer/method “request(s) power output by a first fuel cell and by a second fuel cell in accordance with” the two modes. Here, the claim properly recites an actual consequence to the abstract idea (the selection of a mode has a real and measurable effect on something - not just more information).
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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
It is unclear if the Applicants are seeking patent protection over the third fuel cell or not.
Claim 10 indicates how the Applicants intend to introduce structure. Namely, each fuel cell is distinctly listed (“a first fuel cell”, “a second fuel cell…”) under a “comprising” transitional phrase. Claim 11, however, only passively refers to the third fuel cell as how the power management controller “is operatively connected”. This is descriptive of the controller – it does not particularly point out or distinctly claim that the fuel cell system comprises this third fuel cell.
Different readers would draw different conclusions regarding the scope of the claim. The format (as indicated above) indicates that the third fuel cell is not claimed. The presence of the third fuel cell in claims 11-13 suggests that it is relevant and should be present in the system.
Claims 12-13 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (US 2020/0044270), cited as an X-reference against the claims in the corresponding PCT application. No comments have been provided to indicate why this reference should not be applied against the pending claims.
With respect to claim 1, Nakajima discloses a method (Fig 4, 16; par 68-74, 87, 184-197, 217), comprising:
receiving a total power request including a total power value (S100 and S110);
comparing the total power value to a threshold (S120); and
selecting between an equal load split mode (S130; par 190 refers back to fig 4 and par 73) or a cascaded load split mode (S150; par 193-194) based on the total power value, the equal load split mode being selected if the total power value is above the threshold (Y in S120) and the cascaded load split mode being selected if the total power value is below the threshold (N in S120).
Nakajima discloses a method that compares a total power value to a threshold and selects one of two fuel cell modes (equal load split S130 or unequal/cascade load split S150).
With respect to claim 2, Nakajima discloses:
detecting a fault scenario associated with a first fuel cell (par 87, “if either the first fuel cell 11 or the second fuel cell 12 has developed a fault”); and
requesting power output by a second fuel cell in accordance with the equal load split mode or the cascaded load split mode as a result of the fault scenario (par 87; “the fuel cell that is not faulty can be made to general electric power…”).
With respect to claim 3, Nakajima discloses requesting power output by a third fuel cell in accordance with the equal load split mode or the cascaded load split mode as a result of the fault scenario (par 87, 217).
With respect to claim 4, Nakajima discloses requesting power output by a first fuel cell and by a second fuel cell in accordance with one of the equal load split mode or the cascaded load split mode (S130 and S150).
With respect to claim 5, Nakajima discloses wherein requesting power output by the first fuel cell and by the second fuel cell in accordance with the equal load split mode includes transmitting an equal power request to the first fuel cell and to the second fuel cell (par 73-74).
A “request” is not the same as a “command”. The claim does not require that the method purposefully control the two fuel cells to have exactly the same power output.
With respect to claim 6, Nakajima discloses wherein requesting power output by the first fuel cell and by the second fuel cell in accordance with the cascaded load split mode includes: transmitting a first power request to the first fuel cell; and transmitting a second power request to the second fuel cell (par 193). Paragraph 194 also refers back to figs 7 and 10. At least paragraphs 97-100 disclose sending two different power requests to the fuel cells.
With respect to claim 7, Nakajima discloses the first power request indicates a first power value based on a saturation characteristic of the first fuel cell, and wherein the first power value is lower than the total power value (par 95, 97).
With respect to claim 8, Nakajima discloses the second power request indicates a second power value lower than the first power value (par 100).
With respect to claim 9, Nakajima discloses the second power request is based on a saturation characteristic of the second fuel cell (par 95, 97).
Regarding claims 7 and 9 – these claims separately depend from claim 6. The ordinal numbering of the fuel cells is irrelevant. With two fuel cells, the one on the left is the one whose power request is based on a saturation characteristic. It does not matter if we begin counting with this one (the one on the left is “first”) or the one on the right (the one on the left is “second”). The claims only require that one of the two fuel cells is controlled in this manner.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, all fuel cell outputs are “based on” a saturation characteristic. The claims do not recite any actual relationship or how the method uses this characteristic to create a specific request value.
Nakajima discloses that the second fuel cell has a nominal value and the first fuel cell is control in response to load demand. This means that the second request is lower than the first and that the first is “based on” the fuel cells maximum performance ability (saturation characteristic).
With respect to claims 17-20, Nakajima discloses a power management controller (fig 3), comprising: one or more memories (“RAM” and “ROM”); and one or more processors (“CPU”), communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to perform the method as recited in claims 1-3. Nakajima further discloses requesting an output of the two fuel cells according to the selected mode (S130, S150).
Claim 17 corresponds to claims 1 and 4. Claim 18 corresponds to claims 2-3. Claim 19 corresponds to claim 5. Claim 20 corresponds to claims 5-6 and 8.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Turlapati (US 2023/0302922).
With respect to claim 1, Turlapati discloses a method (fig 2B; par 126-135), comprising:
receiving a total power request including a total power value (par 127 “power demand P of the vehicle”);
comparing the total power value to a threshold (par 134, first sentence); and
selecting between an equal load split mode (par 134, “even power split”) or a cascaded load split mode (par 127, only a subset of fuel cells are controlled) based on the total power value, the equal load split mode being selected if the total power value is above the threshold and the cascaded load split mode being selected if the total power value is below the threshold (see par 127 and 134).
Turlapati discloses a method that compares a vehicle load demand (power value) to a threshold and selects one of two fuel cell modes in response. When power demand is high, all fuel cells are operated equally. When power demand is low, only a subset (cascade) is operated.
With respect to claim 4, Turlapati discloses requesting power output by a first fuel cell and by a second fuel cell in accordance with one of the equal load split mode or the cascaded load split mode (par 127, 134).
With respect to claim 5, Turlapati discloses wherein requesting power output by the first fuel cell and by the second fuel cell in accordance with the equal load split mode includes transmitting an equal power request to the first fuel cell and to the second fuel cell (par 134).
Turlapati actually controls the fuel cells to have the equal split. Thus, the reference both “selects” the mode and outputs a request for the fuel cells to carry out the mode.
With respect to claim 6, Turlapati discloses wherein requesting power output by the first fuel cell and by the second fuel cell in accordance with the cascaded load split mode includes: transmitting a first power request to the first fuel cell; and transmitting a second power request to the second fuel cell (par 127).
With respect to claim 7, Turlapati discloses the first power request indicates a first power value based on a saturation characteristic of the first fuel cell, and wherein the first power value is lower than the total power value (par 127). “based on” does not require that the saturation characteristic is known or specifically used to create the request, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, Turlapati discloses the second power request indicates a second power value lower than the first power value (par 127 – the second power request is for one of the fuel cells outside of the selected subset).
With respect to claim 9, Turlapati discloses the second power request is based on a saturation characteristic of the second fuel cell (par 127). The ordinal numbering does not make claim 9 any different than claim 7, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Turlapati discloses a fuel cell system (fig 2B; par 126-135) comprising: a first fuel cell (14); a second fuel cell (14) connected in parallel to the first fuel cell; and a power management controller (202) operatively coupled to the first fuel cell and the second fuel cell, the power management controller being configured (see par 126-135 and the art rejection of claim 1) to select between an equal load split mode or a cascaded load split mode based on a power value, the equal load split mode being selected if the power value is above a threshold and the cascaded load split mode being selected if the power value is below the threshold.
With respect to claims 11, Turlapati discloses a third fuel cell (see fig 2B).
With respect to claims 15-16, Turlapati discloses the recited limitations, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 6-9.
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.
Claims 2-3, 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turlapati in view of Nakajima.
Turlapati discloses the method of claim 1, the system of claim 10 and the controller of claims 17 and 19-20, but does not expressly disclose fault detection or the presence of a memory/processor in the controller. Nakajima discloses a fuel cell method/system/controller with memory, processor and fault detection, as discussed above in the rejections of claims 2-3, 12-14 and 17-18.
Turlapati and Nakajima are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell systems with modes selected in response to power demand. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Turlapati to include fault detection and compensation, as taught by Nakajima. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the system more robust. The skilled artisan would have understood that a failed fuel cell is unreliable in either mode and would have desired to find a way to compensate for a failed cell.
It would have been obvious to modify Turlapati to include a memory and processor, as taught by Nakajima, because they are common controller components. Turlapati discloses its controller takes specific actions and receives/transmits information. This is obviously evidence of a memory and processor, even if the reference doesn’t explicitly use the words.
Claims 10-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Ecer (US 2020/0136160).
With respect to claim 10, Nakajima discloses a fuel cell system (fig 2-3, 7, 16; par 49-67, 68-74, 87, 184-197, 217) comprising: a first fuel cell (11); a second fuel cell (12); and a power management controller (20) operatively coupled to the first fuel cell and the second fuel cell, the power management controller being configured (see fig 16 and the art rejection of claim 1) to select between an equal load split mode or a cascaded load split mode based on a power value, the equal load split mode being selected if the power value is above a threshold and the cascaded load split mode being selected if the power value is below the threshold.
Nakajima discloses the structure to carry out the method steps of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the two fuel cells are in parallel. Ecer discloses that it is known to configure fuel cells in either series or parallel to realize the electrical benefit of summing voltages or currents, respectively (par 10). Nakajima and Ecer are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cells systems. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Nakajima’s fuel cells to be in parallel, as taught by Ecer. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of their summed currents, according to Kirchhoff’s Current Law.
With respect to claims 11-13 and 15-, Nakajima discloses the recited limitations, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 3, 3, 1, 5 and 6, respectively.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Ecer and Dubois (US 2021/0063493).
Nakajima discloses a closed loop fuel cell adjustment process (fig 16), but does not expressly disclose a slow proportional-integral tune adjustment. Dubois discloses that such an adjustment is known in fuel cell controllers (par 39). Nakajima and Dubois are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell controllers. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Nakajima’s closed loop to use P/I tune adjustment, as taught by Dubois. The motivation for doing so would have been to apply a known and common feedback technique to track to a desired target value.
The claim only broadly recites “in accordance with” and does not clearly set forth what the claimed controller is actually doing. The claim does not recite that the controller actually implements this adjustment. “in accordance with” suggests some relationship, but doesn’t place any limits on how far removed from a true P/I tune adjustment the claimed adjustment can be while still being “in accordance with” one.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turlapati in view of and Dubois (US 2021/0063493).
Turlapati discloses a closed loop control adjustment (par 104). Dubois discloses the P/I tune adjustment, as discussed above. Turlapati and Dubois are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely fuel cell controllers. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Turlapati’s closed loop to use P/I tune adjustment, as taught by Dubois. The motivation for doing so would have been to apply a known and common feedback technique to track to a desired target value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights