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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 1-2, it is unclear whether the claimed invention is an apparatus for supplying power to one or more motors or a power management system. Claim 3, lines 1-2, it is unclear whether the claimed invention is an apparatus for supplying power to one or more motors or a power management system. Claim 6, lines 3-5, the “optionally” clauses do not recite limitations because they are optional, and it is unclear if they are intended to be part of the claimed invention. Claim 9, lines 1-2 recite the apparatus according to claim 2; and a high voltage power management module. It is unclear how the apparatus of claim 2 and the high voltage power management module are structurally related. Claim 16, lines 4-6, the “optionally” clauses do not recite limitations because they are optional, and it is unclear if they are intended to be part of the claimed invention. Claim 18, lines 9 and 13-14, the “optionally” clauses do not recite limitations because they are optional, and it is unclear if they are intended to be part of the claimed invention. Claim 18, line 18, “the peak energy output” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 (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.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Japanese patent of Shibuya et al (JP 2018-152172). An English translation of Shibuya has been provided.
As to claim 1, Shibuya discloses an apparatus for supplying power to one or
more motors for driving a drivetrain of a fuel cell electric vehicle, comprising a power management system comprising: an electrical energy store (14) configured to selectively supply power to the one or more motors to provide transient power to drive the fuel cell electric vehicle (see Figure 1); and a high voltage power management module (20) connectable to a fuel cell stack of the fuel cell vehicle (12, 32n-p), the high voltage power management module (20) configured to control the fuel cell stack and the electrical energy store to alternatively or simultaneously supply power to the one or more motors (see Figure 4 and paragraphs [0085]-[0131], the first through sixth control processes); wherein the electrical energy store is configured to have a maximum charge capacity (the electrical energy store inherently has a finite charge capacity and therefore has a maximum charge capacity), and a peak deployable output power such that, when operating at peak deployable output, the electrical energy store is discharged from its maximum charge capacity to depletion (the electrical energy store inherently has a maximum depletion rate). Shibuya does not disclose the electrical energy store discharged from its maximum charge capacity to depletion in less than 7 minutes; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used an electrical energy store that discharges from its maximum charge capacity to depletion in less than 7 minutes, because selections of values of components and operational levels for an electronic device are engineering decisions based upon the system’s intended use and the
expected requirements of the other systems with which it will interface. See
MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Shibuya. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claims 2-4 and 6-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim or a base claim that has been objected to, or because of informalities, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, with the informalities corrected.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 6-23 contain allowable subject matter because none of the prior art
of record discloses or suggests wherein the electrical energy store is configured to have a greater peak deployable output power than a peak deployable output power of the fuel cell stack, and wherein the electrical energy store is sized such that the total energy providable to the one or more motors for driving the fuel cell electric vehicle by discharging the electrical energy store from its maximum charge capacity to depletion is less than the total energy providable by the fuel cell stack from a fuel store in the vehicle in normal use, in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Claims 3-4 contain allowable subject matter because none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests wherein the electrical energy store is configured to have a greater peak deployable output power than a peak deployable output power of the fuel cell stack, and wherein the electrical energy store is sized such that the total energy providable to the one or more motors for driving the fuel cell electric vehicle by discharging the electrical energy store from its maximum charge capacity to depletion is less than the total energy providable by the fuel cell stack from a fuel store in the vehicle in normal use, in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 9, filed August 21, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the objections to the specification and claims have been fully considered and are persuasive, except as set forth above. The objections and rejections of claims 22-23 have been withdrawn, except as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAL KAPLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8587. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/HAL KAPLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836