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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 10/14/2025 for application number 18/685,247 filed on 02/21/2024, in which claims 1-20 were originally presented for examination.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 & 13-20 are currently amended, claims 11 & 12 have been cancelled, and claims 21 & 22 have been added as new claims both depending on claims 1. Accordingly, Claims 1-10 & 13-22 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for: (1) foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-161335, filed on 09/30/2021, and (2) this application to be a 371 of PCT/JP2022/036477, filed on 09/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2024 has been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 10/14/2024 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Interpretation under 35 USC §112(f): Interpretation of claim(s) under 35 USC §112(f), are maintained, as the amended claims filed on 10/14/2024 have failed overcome the claim interpretation under 112(f) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/17/2025.
In addition, Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of Claim(s) Interpretation(s) presented below.
Regarding the Claim Objections: The Claim Objections are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 10/14/2025 have properly addressed the claim(s) informality objection(s) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/17/2025.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §112(b): The rejections of claims 1-20 for being indefinite are maintained, for the same reasons recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/17/2025, and outlined below. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims under USC §112(b) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive as the Specification, in at least PG Pub. ¶35, teaches away from the alleged definition currently introduced in the amended base claim(s). In addition, applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection under §112(b) presented below.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1): Applicant’s Arguments regarding the amended claims as being not clearly anticipated by the prior art of Chen (CN-108987770-A) are persuasive in view of the currently amended base claims 1 & 9 Accordingly, the previous prior art rejection(s) under 35 USC §102 have been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection under §103 presented below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“load ratio determinator configured to determine...” in claim 1
“operation instructor configured to operate …” in claim 1
“status identifier configured to identify …” in claims 7, 17 & 18
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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 USC §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.
Claims 1-10 & 13-22 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) or 35 USC §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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 13-16 & 19-21, the term “desired electric power” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired” is not properly defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree or level of need vs. desired power amount (See PG Pub. ¶35, wherein “The desired electric power may not necessarily be the total electric power needed for operating the dump body 11 and the traveling device 13”), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “needed electric power” to overcome this rejection.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 17, 18 & 22 are rejected for incorporating the error(s) of their respective base claims by dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 USC §112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC §112(d) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claim is not further narrowing base claim 1 from which it depends and should be written in independent form as the claimed desired electric power that “is determined based on at least an operation amount of a dump body” limitation is broader than the claimed desired electric power that “is determined based on an operation amount to adjust a posture of a member on which a load is placed”, wherein “a member on which a load is placed” is a dump body (see Remarks 1st paragraph of page 10).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §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 USC §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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 12-13 & 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication No. CN-108987770-A by Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”, which is found in the IDS submitted on 02/21/2024), in view of PG Pub. No. US-2021/0296666-A1 to Kitamoto et al. (hereinafter “Kitamoto”)
The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Chen’s reference a copy of which is attached to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/17/2025 as also indicated in the 892 form mailed on 07/17/2025.
As per claim 1, Chen discloses a control device of a work machine including a plurality of fuel cells, the control device comprising:
a load ratio determinator configured to determine a load ratio of each of the plurality of fuel cells based on desired electric power of the work machine, the desired electric power is a power to be output from the plurality of fuel cells for operations of the work machine (Chen, in at least Fig(s) 1, 2 [reproduced here for convenience], 3 [reproduced here for convenience], 4 &10 and ¶¶12-17, discloses, in Step S200, to establish the overall efficiency and load power constraint relationship of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, wherein the efficiency of a single-stack fuel cell system is calculated, wherein a calculation formula for the efficiency of a single-stack fuel cell system based on the efficiency of the nth fuel cell stack, the conversion efficiency of the nth fuel cell stack, the electrical efficiency of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, and the fuel utilization rate that is set to 99%-100%. Chen further discloses, in Step S200, to draw a curve of actual single-stack fuel cell system efficiency versus output power, wherein through the power adaptive allocation control method of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, the power required by the load is reasonably allocated to each single-stack fuel cell system, such that the optimal overall system efficiency is used as the evaluation indicator to ensure that the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system operates stably with optimal efficiency. Chen also discloses fuel cell power generation systems are widely used in distributed power generation, rail transit, motor vehicles and mobile equipment); and
PNG
media_image1.png
296
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen’s Fig. 2
an operation instructor configured to operate each of the plurality of fuel cells at the determined load ratio, wherein the desired electric power is determined based on an operation amount (Chen, in at least ¶¶12-17, 35-39 & 77, discloses a multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, including controller, DC bus, and plurality of single-stack fuel cell systems that are connected in parallel on the DC bus, and a load is connected to the DC bus. Chen further discloses the single-stack fuel cell system includes a fuel cell stack that is connected to a DC bus after cascading a DC/DC converter, wherein the controller controls the DC/DC converters in each single-stack fuel cell system so that each fuel cell subsystem can be independently controlled, ensuring the optimization of the overall efficiency of the system, and allowing the vehicle [i.e., a work machine] to run smoothly and efficiently. Chen also discloses the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system automatically determines the number of fuel cell stacks to be started and performs adaptive power distribution in real time according to load changes, thereby achieving effective distribution of the output power of each stack and using the optimal overall system efficiency as the evaluation indicator, so that the entire multi-stack system is in the optimal operating state. Chen further discloses, in Step S300, the power required by the load is reasonably allocated to each fuel cell stack through the power adaptive allocation control method of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, and the optimal overall efficiency of the system is used as the evaluation index to ensure that the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system operates stably with the optimal efficiency).
PNG
media_image2.png
474
914
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen’s Fig. 3
While Chen disclosed multi-stack fuel cell power generation system automatically determines the number of fuel cell stacks to be started and performs adaptive power distribution in real time according to load changes, it does not explicitly teach to adjust a posture of a member on which a load is placed.
Kitamoto teaches, in at least Fig. 1 and ¶¶58-69 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle power control systems, to adjust a posture of a member on which a load is placed (Kitamoto, in at least Fig. 1 [reproduced here for convenience] & ¶¶58-69, teaches work equipment monitor unit 230 acquires information indicating the state of each of one or a plurality of electrically-powered equipment pieces from one or a plurality of sensors provided to the vehicle 100, then transmits information indicating the state of the work environment of the vehicle 100 to the load management unit 264. Kitamoto further teaches the load cell 242 measures the weight of the vehicle 100 or the accommodation unit 160, then outputs data indicating a measurement result to the load management unit 264. And, the gyrosensor 244 measures the inclination of the vehicle 100 or the accommodation unit 160, wherein inclination may by an angle formed with the vertical direction, then outputs data indicating a measurement result to the load management unit 264. Kitamoto further teaches the load management unit 264 acquires, stores and manages information related to the load amount of the work unit 122, then transmits the acquired information to the power control unit 148).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto in view of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle power control systems and the combination would provide for determining output rate of the fuel cell based on the load amount indicated by the load information to improve the efficiency and durability of the power source system (see at least Kitamoto’s ¶¶7 &133).
As per claim 2, Chen as modified by Kitamoto discloses the control device of a work machine according to Claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Chen further discloses wherein the load ratio determinator determines the load ratio of each of the plurality of fuel cells such that a total energy loss of the plurality of fuel cells is the minimum, based on the desired electric power of the work machine (Chen, in at least ¶¶12-17, discloses establishing the overall efficiency and load power constraint relationship of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, in Step S200, wherein the efficiency of a single-stack fuel cell system is calculated, and a calculation formula for the efficiency of a single-stack fuel cell system based on the efficiency of the nth fuel cell stack, the conversion efficiency of the nth fuel cell stack, the electrical efficiency of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, and the fuel utilization rate that is set to 99%-100% [i.e., a total energy loss of the plurality of fuel cells is the minimum]).
As per claim 3, Chen as modified by Kitamoto discloses the control device of a work machine according to Claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Chen further discloses wherein the load ratio determinator determines the load ratio of each of the plurality of fuel cells such that at least one fuel cell of the plurality of fuel cells is not operated (Chen, in at least ¶28, discloses when the number of battery stacks to be started is determined [i.e., at least one fuel cell of the plurality of fuel cells is not operated], the real-time output power of each battery stack is equal to optimize the overall system efficiency).
As per claim 4, Chen as modified by Kitamoto discloses the control device of a work machine according to Claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Chen further discloses wherein the desired electric power is determined based on at least an operation amount of a dump body (Chen, in at least ¶¶35, 39 & 77, discloses the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system automatically determines the number of fuel cell stacks to be started and performs adaptive power distribution in real time according to load changes, thereby achieving effective distribution of the output power of each stack and using the optimal overall system efficiency as the evaluation indicator, so that the entire multi-stack system is in the optimal operating state. Chen further discloses, in Step S300, the power required by the load is reasonably allocated to each fuel cell stack through the power adaptive allocation control method of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, and the optimal overall efficiency of the system is used as the evaluation index to ensure that the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system operates stably with the optimal efficiency).
As per claim 6, Chen as modified by Kitamoto discloses the control device of a work machine according to Claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Chen further discloses comprising:
a storage configured to store pattern data in which a pattern of the load ratio of each of the plurality of fuel cells, in which an energy loss is the minimum when outputting electric power within an electric power range, is associated with each electric power range,
wherein the load ratio determinator determines the load ratio of each of the plurality of fuel cells based on the pattern associated with the electric power range including the desired electric power in the pattern data (Chen, in at least ¶5, discloses storage device in the vehicle section can provide a sustainable power source and achieve off-grid operation throughout the entire process).
As per claim 7, Chen as modified by Kitamoto discloses the control device of a work machine according to Claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Chen further discloses comprising:
a status identifier configured to identify usage statuses of the plurality of fuel cells,
wherein in a case of not operating some fuel cells of the plurality of fuel cells, the load ratio determinator determines fuel cells that are not to be operated, among the plurality of fuel cells, based on the usage statuses (Chen, in at least ¶28, discloses when the number of battery stacks to be started is determined [i.e., identify usage statuses of the plurality of fuel cells], the real-time output power of each battery stack is equal to optimize the overall system efficiency).
As per claim 8, Chen as modified by Kitamoto discloses the control device of a work machine according to Claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Chen further discloses wherein the work machine further includes a battery, and
the control device further comprises a battery controller configured to cause the battery to output electric power that is a difference between electric power output by the plurality of fuel cells and the desired electric power (Chen, in at least ¶¶28 & 82-84, discloses when the number of battery [i.e., the work machine further includes a battery] stacks to be started is determined, the real-time output power of each battery stack is equal to optimize the overall system efficiency. Chen further discloses the algorithm that compares the efficiency of the k battery stacks before startup with the efficiency of the (k+1) battery stacks before startup in real time, and allocates the output power of each battery stack in real time, which significantly improves the overall system efficiency and ensures efficient operation of the vehicle).
As per claim 9, the claim is directed towards a control method that recites similar steps performed by the control device of claim 1. The cited portions of Chen used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same method steps of claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claims 11 & 12, Cancelled
As per claims 10, 13, 15, 17 & 19, the claims are directed towards control devices that recites similar limitations performed by the control devices of claims 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8, respectively. The cited portions of Chen used in the rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 teach the same steps performed by the devices of claims 10, 13, 15, 17 & 19, respectively. Therefore, claims 10, 13, 15, 17 & 19 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 as outlined above.
As per claims 14, 16, 18 & 20, the claims are directed towards control devices that recites similar limitations performed by the control devices of claims 5, 6, 7 & 8, respectively. The cited portions of Chen used in the rejections of claims 5, 6, 7 & 8 teach the same steps performed by the devices of claims 14, 16, 18 & 20, respectively. Therefore, claims 14, 16, 18 & 20 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 5, 6, 7 & 8 as outlined above.
As per claim21, Chen as modified by Kitamoto discloses the control device of a work machine according to Claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Chen further discloses wherein the load ratio determinator is configured to determine the load ratio of each of the plurality of fuel cells such that a total energy loss of the plurality of fuel cells is the minimum, based on the desired electric power and output electric power when the plurality of fuel cells are operated at a load ratio related to a maximum efficiency (Chen, in at least Fig(s) 1, 2 [reproduced here for convenience], 3, 4 &10 and ¶¶12-17, discloses establishing the overall efficiency and load power constraint relationship of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, in Step S200, wherein the efficiency of a single-stack fuel cell system is calculated, and a calculation formula for the efficiency of a single-stack fuel cell system based on the efficiency of the nth fuel cell stack, the conversion efficiency of the nth fuel cell stack, the electrical efficiency of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, and the fuel utilization rate that is set to 99%-100%. Chen further discloses fuel cell power generation systems are widely used in distributed power generation, rail transit, motor vehicles and mobile equipment. Chen, in at least ¶¶12-17, 35-39 & 77, discloses a multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, including a single-stack fuel cell system, a controller and a DC bus, wherein a plurality of the single-stack fuel cell systems are connected in parallel on the DC bus, and a load is connected to the DC bus. Chen further discloses the single-stack fuel cell system includes a fuel cell stack that is connected to a DC bus after cascading a DC/DC converter, wherein the controller controls the DC/DC converters in each single-stack fuel cell system so that each fuel cell subsystem can be independently controlled, ensuring the optimization of the overall efficiency of the system, and allowing the vehicle [i.e., a work machine] to run smoothly and efficiently. Chen also discloses the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system automatically determines the number of fuel cell stacks to be started and performs adaptive power distribution in real time according to load changes, thereby achieving effective distribution of the output power of each stack and using the optimal overall system efficiency as the evaluation indicator, so that the entire multi-stack system is in the optimal operating state. Chen further discloses, in Step S300, the power required by the load is reasonably allocated to each fuel cell stack through the power adaptive allocation control method of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, and the optimal overall efficiency of the system is used as the evaluation index to ensure that the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system operates stably with the optimal efficiency. Chen, in at least ¶¶28 & 82-84, discloses when the number of battery stacks to be started is determined, the real-time output power of each battery stack is equal to optimize the overall system efficiency, wherein the algorithm that compares the efficiency of the k battery stacks before startup with the efficiency of the (k+1) battery stacks before startup in real time, and allocates the output power of each battery stack in real time, which significantly improves the overall system efficiency and ensures efficient operation of the vehicle).
As per claim 22, Chen as modified by Kitamoto discloses the control device of a work machine according to Claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Chen further discloses comprising:
a status identifier configured to identify usage statuses of the plurality of fuel cells, wherein when some fuel cells of the plurality of fuel cells are not in operation, the load ratio determinator is configured to determine which of the plurality of fuel cells are not to be operated based on the usage statuses, and the usage statuses include a usage load identified based on a detected physical amount (Chen, in at least ¶¶12-17, 35-39 & 77, discloses each fuel cell subsystem can be independently controlled, ensuring the optimization of the overall efficiency of the system, and allowing the vehicle to run smoothly and efficiently. Chen also discloses the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system automatically determines the number of fuel cell stacks to be started and performs adaptive power distribution in real time according to load changes, thereby achieving effective distribution of the output power of each stack and using the optimal overall system efficiency as the evaluation indicator, so that the entire multi-stack system is in the optimal operating state. Chen further discloses, in Step S300, the power required by the load is reasonably allocated to each fuel cell stack through the power adaptive allocation control method of the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system, and the optimal overall efficiency of the system is used as the evaluation index to ensure that the multi-stack fuel cell power generation system operates stably with the optimal efficiency. Chen, in at least ¶¶28 & 82-84, discloses when the number of battery stacks to be started is determined, the real-time output power of each battery stack is equal to optimize the overall system efficiency, wherein the algorithm that compares the efficiency of the k battery stacks before startup with the efficiency of the (k+1) battery stacks before startup in real time, and allocates the output power of each battery stack in real time, which significantly improves the overall system efficiency and ensures efficient operation of the vehicle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13 & 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and the claim rejection(s) under 35 USC §112(b) or 35 USC §112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached and previously mailed PTO-892 forms.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
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.
/Tarek Elarabi, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661