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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim comprises duplications of language such as “an operating poweroperating power of a fuel cell system” and “measuring and storing the operating poweroperating power of the fuel cell.” Similar issues are found in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the balance of the fuel cell damage forecast and the battery damage forecast". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner treated “the balance” of respective forecasts as a joint contribution to vehicle target power available.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“Controlling method for controlling an output power of a battery device and an operating power of a fuel cell system for an electric drive device of a hybrid drive system, characterised by the following steps:
measuring and storing the operating power of the fuel cell system over a measurement period,
measuring and storing the output power of the battery device (110) over a measurement period,
determining a battery damage forecast at least on the basis of the measured and stored output power of the battery device,
determining a fuel cell damage forecast at least on the basis of the measured and stored operating power of the fuel cell system;
specifying a target output power for the battery device on the basis of the determined battery damage forecast,
specifying a target operating power for the fuel cell system (120) on the basis of the determined fuel cell damage forecast.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, all highlighted steps are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the specifying steps, under the BRI, alternatively/additionally is treated as mental grouping steps (MPEP 2106.04.II: “construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation”). These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. In the context of this claim, it encompasses a user manually specifying a target output power for the battery device on the basis of the determined battery damage forecast and specifying a target operating power for the fuel cell system (120) on the basis of the determined fuel cell damage forecast and making such specification/judgement based on the determined/calculated forecasts and/or additional criteria.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claim comprises the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: Controlling method for controlling an output power of a battery device and an operating power of a fuel cell system for an electric drive device of a hybrid drive system, characterised by the following steps: measuring and storing the operating power of the fuel cell system over a measurement period, measuring and storing the output power of the battery device (110) over a measurement period.
The additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The limitations that generically recite measuring and storing the operating power of the fuel cell system over a measurement period, measuring and storing the output power of the battery device (110) over a measurement period represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-15 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 13 and 15 (battery/fuel system replacement indication and a hybrid drive of a vehicle) are recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu-ting Wang et al. (CN 110450653), hereinafter ‘Wang’.
With regards to Claim 1, Wang discloses
Controlling method for controlling an output power of a battery device and an operating power of a fuel cell system for an electric drive device of a hybrid drive system (The invention claims an optimal control strategy of hybrid power vehicle based on fuel cell/ lithium battery degradation model, Abstract; fuel cell hybrid power system comprises a fuel battery pack and lithium battery pack, p.2), characterised by the following steps:
considering the operating power of the fuel cell system over a measurement period (FIG. 2 is the normalized the electrochemically active surface area curve graph at different potential within 5000 hours. experiment shows that less electrochemically active surface area the attenuation value of the 0.60V potential is only reduced to 50% after 5000 hours, than the electrochemically active surface area attenuation value of 1 V high potential is rapidly reduced to 90% after 2000 hours, p.7),
considering the output power of the battery device (110) over a measurement period (the relation curve of the lithium battery health state decay and charge and discharge rate. As a result as shown in FIG. 4),
determining a battery damage forecast at least on the basis of the measured and stored output power of the battery device (FIG. 6 three different fuel cell consumption coefficient a of the lithium battery health state curve, three different fuel cell consumption coefficient a the condition that satisfies the linear function, but the absolute value difference is large. the specific condition is as follows …, p.10),
determining a fuel cell damage forecast at least on the basis of the measured and stored operating power of the fuel cell system (FIG. 5 three different fuel cell consumption coefficient a corresponding to the fuel cell electrochemical active surface area curve, simulation experiment performed under the driving simulation cycle, the lasting time is 5000 hours. the three different fuel cell consumption coefficient a corresponding to the fuel cell electrochemical active surface area curve of the simulation result is … , p.10);
specifying a target output power for the battery device on the basis of the determined battery damage forecast, specifying a target operating power for the fuel cell system (120) on the basis of the determined fuel cell damage forecast (maximizing fuel cell/cycle life of the lithium battery for target optimization, p.2; representing the power maximum value and minimum value as the target function, Pmin, Pmax, the maximum value SOCmin, the SOCmax are that the current charge state of the lithium battery, the minimum value; the lithium battery state-of-charge value is limited between the set region value: (SOCmin, SOCmax); for limiting fuel cell power decay rate, the value range is (Pmin, Pmax), the control variable calculated by the optimal state trajectory, using formula (24) to calculate the total energy consumption amount, and the total energy consumption control in the effective range, p.8-9, Figs. 2, 4-6).
Wang also discloses using experimental (i.e. measured) data representing output power of a battery and operating power of a fuel cell (using the actual fuel cell/experiment data of lithium battery hybrid vehicle to obtain the fitting values, p.4; experiment shows that less electrochemically active surface area the attenuation value of the 0.60V potential is only reduced to 50% after 5000 hours, than the electrochemically active surface area attenuation value of 1 V high potential is rapidly reduced to 90% after 2000 hours.).
However, Wang does not specifically disclose that the operating power curves in figures 2 and 4 are measured and stored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to use actual/measured data for optimal control strategy of hybrid power vehicle based on fuel cell/ lithium battery degradation model as a reliable input while storing these data for analysis as discussed in Wang.
With regards to Claim 2, Wang is silent on controlling method according to claim 1, wherein the balance of the fuel cell damage forecast and the battery damage forecast is taken into account for the specification of the target output power and the specification of the target operating power.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to take into consideration remaining balance of power when specifying a target output power for the battery device and a target operating power for the fuel cell system because the predicted target values compose the total power available while accounting for degradation and current state of charge (the current charge state of the lithium battery, the minimum value; the lithium battery state-of-charge value is limited between the set region value: (SOCmin, SOCmax); for limiting fuel cell power decay rate, the value range is (Pmin, Pmax), p.9).
With regards to Claim 3, Wang discloses that a battery damage status for the current damage situation of the battery device and a fuel cell damage status for the current damage situation of the fuel cell system is determined and taken into account for the specification of the target output power and/or the target operating power (in the formula, Xk is the state variable, Xk comprises current state-of-charge value SOCk and a previous time power output control method of fuel battery
in the formula, u (k) is the control variable, refers to the current power of the fuel cell, as the objective function; SOCk = (SOCmin to SOCmax) (28)
in the formula, SOCk refers to the current charge state, respectively representing the power maximum value and minimum value as the target function, Pmin, Pmax, the maximum value SOCmin, the SOCmax are that the current charge state of the lithium battery, the minimum value; the lithium battery state-of-charge value is limited between the set region value: (SOCmin, SOCmax); for limiting fuel cell power decay rate, the value range is (Pmin, Pmax), the control variable calculated by the optimal state trajectory, using formula (24) to calculate the total energy consumption amount, and the total energy consumption control in the effective range, p.9; Figs. 2-6).
With regards to Claim 4, Wang discloses a minimum service life until a maximum battery damage status is achieved and until a maximum fuel cell damage status is achieved is specified for the battery device and the fuel cell system (EOL is the final service life, defined as: in the process of electric vehicle application, available capacity of the lithium battery is reduced to the rated capacity of 20% …, pp. 4-5; SOCk = (SOCmin to SOCmax) (28) in the formula, SOCk refers to the current charge state, respectively representing the power maximum value and minimum value as the target function, Pmin, Pmax, the maximum value SOCmin, the SOCmax are that the current charge state of the lithium battery, the minimum value; the lithium battery state-of-charge value is limited between the set region value: (SOCmin, SOCmax); for limiting fuel cell power decay rate, the value range is (Pmin, Pmax), the control variable calculated by the optimal state trajectory, using formula (24) to calculate the total energy consumption amount, and the total energy consumption control in the effective range, p.5; Fig. 4).
With regards to Claim 5, Wang discloses the specification of the target output power and the target operating power is carried out taking into account a remaining residual battery damage and/or a remaining residual fuel cell damage (solving the mixed power automobile optimal control strategy by minimizing fuel
consumption and maximizing fuel cell/cycle life of the lithium battery for target optimization, furthest prolong the hybrid power system, p.9).
With regards to Claims 6 and 7, Wang discloses the battery damage forecast and/or the fuel cell damage forecast, in particular also a battery damage status, a fuel cell damage status, a residual battery damage and/or a residual fuel cell damage are normalized, wherein the normalisation relates to a minimum service life and/or to a mileage (FIG. 2 is a normalized electrochemically active surface area graph under different potential within 5000 hours, p.5; Figs. 2-6).
With regards to Claims 8 and 9, Wang discloses wherein at least one battery parameter and/or a fuel cell parameter is monitored for the battery damage forecast and/or the fuel cell damage forecast and the battery damage forecast and/or the fuel cell damage forecast include sub-component damage forecasts.
(step 2.3: calculating the residual lithium battery capacity: Qrem (t) is a lithium battery residual capacity, the computing formula is as follows: in the formula, Q (t0) is the initial capacity, 11 (t) I the absolute value of current; is a lithium-based battery remaining capacity degradation rate by differentiating the formula (23) based on the remaining capacity of the lithium battery degradation rate is: solving equation (24) to obtain the relation curve of the lithium battery health state decay and charge and discharge rate, p.5; Figs. 2-6).
With regards to Claim 10, Wang discloses only long-term and/or irreversible damage mechanisms are taken into account for the battery damage forecast and/or the fuel cell damage forecast (in the formula, Q (t0) is the initial capacity, | I (t) | the absolute value of current; is a lithium-based battery remaining capacity degradation rate by differentiating the formula (23) based on the remaining capacity of the lithium battery degradation rate is …, p.5; Figs. 2-6).
With regards to Claim 11, Wang discloses a damage model is used to determine the battery damage forecast and/or the fuel cell damage forecast (The invention claims an optimal control strategy of hybrid power vehicle based on fuel cell/ lithium battery degradation model, comprising: step 1), establishing a fuel cell degradation model based on the electrochemical active surface area attenuation, and simulating the influence of the model on the polarization curve; step 2): establishing the lithium battery degradation model based on the residual capacity, and describing the instantaneous battery capacity loss rate as a function of current; step 3): solving the optimal control strategy of the hybrid power vehicle, optimizing the optimal control strategy by minimizing the fuel consumption and maximizing the cycle life of the fuel cell/ lithium battery, and maximizing the total service life of the hybrid power system, Abstract, and as discussed above).
With regards to Claim 12, Wang is silent on the damage model is improved on the basis of measured and stored operating power, on the basis of measured and stored output power and/or on the basis of other damage parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to improve the damage model on the basis of measured and stored operating power by using the experimental data to increase accuracy of the model as known in the art.
With regards to Claim 13, Wang is silent on in the event of a negative battery damage forecast and/or negative fuel cell damage forecast, a replacement of the battery device, the fuel cell system, a component of the battery device and/or a component of the fuel cell system is indicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to replace the battery device, the fuel cell system, a component of the battery device and/or a component of the fuel cell system is indicated when a negative forecast is produced indicating that the damage is permanent as known in the art of maintenance.
With regards to Claim 14, Wang as modified discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 1-13 and Figs. 1-6.
With regards to Claim 15, Wang as modified discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims13 and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chao Wang et al. (CN 112440765) discloses a control method of vehicle power output power and fuel cell electric automobile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights