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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 004 308.1, filed on 08/23/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/22/2024 and 09/04/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 02/22/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-8 and 10 are currently pending.
Claim 9 is cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 10 are currently amended.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20180334170 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Liu, in view of Saito et al. (US 20090176135 A1, pre-grant publication of US 8124290 B2 relied upon in the first office action), herein after will be referred to as Saito, and in further view of Maus et al. (DE 102017004963 A1), herein after will be referred to as Maus.
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches a method for planning a vehicle utilization of a…vehicle (1) (A precondition scheduler that responds to a predicted future start time to plan the vehicle’s preconditioning; see at least Liu, Para [0055]),
wherein at least one vehicle component being preconditioned during the vehicle utilization (The HEV is configured to predictively and adaptively precondition temperatures of various components to improve efficiency and performance upon start-up. The components include batteries, cabin, ICE, and catalyst; see at least Liu, Para [0051]),
characterized in that a point in time, a duration and/or a number of vehicle downtimes to be carried out during a vehicle utilization is selected such that at least one traction battery (2) of the…vehicle (1) has a charging status within a defined charging status area (3) at the beginning of a vehicle downtime (The system manages the battery’s State of Charge (SoC) ensuring it remains above a predetermined minimum “SoC-threshold” that establishes the defined charging status area (see at least Liu, Para [0061]) and is required to have sufficient power for future preconditioning and vehicle start-up which implies the vehicle downtime (see at least Liu, Para [0057]),
so that an amount of electrical energy provided by a…system during the vehicle downtime is stored completely in the traction battery (2) or is stored partially in the traction battery (2) and the stored energy is sufficient to run a third-party consumer (4) during the vehicle downtime (The traction battery is configured to store and supply energy from and to other vehicle components and accessories; see at least Lui Para [0031-0032]),
while keeping an amount of electrical energy available in the traction battery (2) at the beginning of the vehicle downtime sufficient to heat…the… vehicle (1) to an operating temperature at the end of the vehicle downtime (Reserve the traction battery SoC so that a vehicle component reaches its optimum operating temperature by the predicted time of use; see at least Liu, Para [0057-0058]).
Liu does not explicitly teach an amount of electrical energy provided by a boil-off management system during the vehicle downtime and a fuel cell system.
However, Saito teaches a system that manages the electrical energy generated from boil-off gas in a fuel cell vehicle during downtime, where the energy is used to power auxiliary components such as a controller, an air pump, and a water circulating pump ([0036]) as well as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system (HVAC) ([0037]), and at the same time allows the fuel cell stack to operate and remain warm during shutdown ([0036] [0008]). The generation of electrical energy from the cryogenic hydrogen boil-off during downtime is equivalent to the claimed “amount of electrical energy provided by a boil-off management system during the vehicle downtime” because the system converts cryogenic hydrogen boil-off into usable electrical energy while the vehicle is stationary. The energy generated by the boil-off during the downtime must be absorbed. One of ordinary skill in the art would leave headroom in the traction battery at the start of the downtime to store the generated electricity, establishing the upper bound of the claimed “defined charging status area” and compliments to the lower bound of Liu’s reserves for heating vehicle components. Saito further teaches the fuel cell system as the fuel cell stack ([0022]) that operates on boil-off keeping the fuel cell stack warm during shutdown ([0008]), which is functionally equivalent to the claimed “sufficient to heat a fuel cell system…to an operating temperature at the end of the vehicle downtime.”
Liu and Saito are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle energy management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lui’s predictive preconditioning method to store the boil-off energy from Saito’s fuel cell in the traction battery based on the motivation, as stated by Saito ([0005]), to restrict “the purging of hydrogen boil-off to ambient during fuel cell power plant off-load conditions” and “improved efficiency of fuel utilization in fuel cell power plants”. This provides the benefit of capturing and utilizing boil-off energy in the traction battery while reserving charge to heat the fuel cell. Lui teaches a traction battery that stores energy from other vehicle components ([0031-0032]) and reserves the SoC to bring components to operating temperature ([0057-0058]). Saito teaches converting downtime boil-off hydrogen to electrical energy from a fuel stack ([0022] [0008]). The combination yields the predictable result of storing the boil-off energy in the traction battery while reserving charge to heat the fuel cell to operating temperatures.
Liu and Saito does not explicitly teach a utility vehicle.
However, Maus discloses a method for operating a fuel cell power plant of a utility vehicle. Maus teaches a commercial vehicle in the form of a truck with a fuel cell power plant (see at least Maus, Page 2) that stores cryogenic liquid hydrogen and manages the boil-off during “standstill of the vehicle” (Page 3). Manu’s utility truck is equivalent to the claimed “utility vehicle” because both are commercial trucks carrying a fuel-cell power plant and cryogenic hydrogen tank.
Liu, Saito, and Maus are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle energy management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu and Saito to incorporate the teachings of a fuel-cell truck utility vehicle as taught by Maus based on the motivation that commercial vehicles carry large capacity cryogenic tanks with large boil-off that can be captured during extended downtimes. This provides the benefit of recovering boil-off energy that would otherwise be lost. See § 2143 Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (method) Ready for Improvement to Yield Predictable Results where the downtime boil-off energy management of Lui and Saito is the known technique and Maus’s fuel-cell utility truck is a known device in the same field ready for that improvement. Applying Lui and Saito’s boil-off technique to Maus’s utility truck yields the predictable result of capturing the truck’s downtime boil-off energy.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu, Saito, and Maus remain as applied above in claim 1. Liu further teaches a weather forecast valid for a current and/or future location of the vehicle (1) (A schedule/climate predictor that takes weather and environmental data into account for the predictive planning; see at least Liu, Para [0063] [0051] [0005]);
Regarding Claim 4, Liu, Saito, and Maus remain as applied above in claim 1. Liu further teaches the planning of the vehicle utilization takes place within the vehicle or outside the vehicle (On-board control systems communicate via controller area network (CAN) internally through the vehicle system controller (VSC) and vehicle computing system (VCS); see at least Liu, Para [0034]).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu, Saito, and Maus remain as applied above in claim 4. Liu further teaches the vehicle-external planning of the vehicle utilization is carried out by a service provider (The vehicle is configured to communicate with a roadway infrastructure to vehicle communication system (I2V); see at least Liu, Para [0034]).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu, Saito, and Maus remain as applied above in claim 4. Liu further teaches before the start of a vehicle downtime (The precondition scheduler determines when the temperature preconditioning begins based on a predicted start time establishing before a planned downtime; see at least Liu, Para [0059]).
Liu does not explicitly teach a fuel-gas consumption is increased compared to a normal operating mode and/or a heating power for thermal conditioning of the cryogenic tank (6) is reduced compared to the normal operating mode or a cooling power for thermal conditioning of the cryogenic tank (6) is increased compared to the normal operating mode in order to set the internal tank pressure of the cryogenic tank (6) to a lowest adjustable pressure.
However, Saito discloses the cryogenic fuel cell vehicle boil-off gas causing the pressure to rise to a predetermined pressure and is managed by the controller to open a valve to release the pressure (see at least, Saito [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s preconditioning scheduler to incorporate the teachings of Saito control system to manage the cryogenic tank pressure based on the motivation to improve the safety of the system during a planned downtime.
Regarding Claim 8, Liu teaches a…vehicle (1) having at least one traction battery (2) (HV battery 175 and vehicle 100; see at least Lui, FIG. 1), an electric drive machine (7) (electric motor 120; see at least Lui, Para [0025]), and a computing unit (8) (a vehicle computer system (VCS); see at least Lui, Para [0034]).
Lui does not explicitly teach a fuel cell system (5) and a cryogenic tank (6) .
However, Saito teaches a vehicle that comprises a fuel cell stack (fuel cell system) (see at least Saito, [0022] and FIG. 1) and a cryogenic tank (Saito, [0022] and FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle and control system of Liu with the fuel cell system and cryogenic tank as taught by Saito to perform the method of preconditioning the vehicle and capturing the electrical energy from the boil-off based on the motivation to improve the energy efficiency and operational readiness of the fuel cell vehicle.
Liu and Saito does not explicitly teach a utility vehicle.
However, Maus discloses a method for operating a fuel cell power plant of a utility vehicle. Maus teaches a commercial vehicle in the form of a truck with a fuel cell power plant (see at least Maus, Page 2) that stores cryogenic liquid hydrogen and manages the boil-off during “standstill of the vehicle” (Page 3). Manu’s utility truck is equivalent to the claimed “utility vehicle” because both are commercial trucks carrying a fuel-cell power plant and cryogenic hydrogen tank. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu and Saito to incorporate the teachings of a fuel-cell truck utility vehicle as taught by Maus based on the motivation that commercial vehicles carry large capacity cryogenic tanks with large boil-off that can be captured during extended downtimes. This provides the benefit of recovering boil-off energy that would otherwise be lost.
Regarding Claim 10, Liu, Saito, and Maus remain as applied above in claim 8. Liu further teaches an at least partially automated control system (A preconditioning scheduler that automatically takes inputs and executes a control action by activating the heater at a calculated time; see at least Liu Para [0051], [0055]).
Claim(s) 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Saito, and in view of Maus, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of DeVault et al. (US 20090114463 A1, pre-grant publication of US 7849944 B2 relied upon in the first office action), herein after will be referred to as DeVault.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 1. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the vehicle utilization is planned such that the charging status of the at least one traction battery (2) coincides with an upper (3.U) or lower limit (3.L) of the charging status area (3) at the beginning of a vehicle downtime.
However, DeVault discloses a “Just-in-Time” (JIT) battery management strategy that permits discharge of the battery to its minimum state of charge at the last possible time before recharging ([0043]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed “planning such that the charging status coincides with a lower limit (3.L) of the charging status area at the beginning of a vehicle downtime” because the system plans the battery to reach the lower boundary of its permissible range at the beginning of the vehicle downtime at a recharging station.
Lui, Saito, Maus, and DeVault are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle energy management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the base system of the prior art combination with the JIT strategy of managing the charge status of the traction battery with a lower limit at the beginning of a downtime based on the motivation to maximize the use of the battery’s available storage capacity before the recharging station. The combination yields the predictable results of the charge status coinciding with the lower limit of the charging at the beginning of the vehicle downtime.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 1. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach an upper (3.U) and/or lower limit (3.L) of the charging status area (3) and/or the point in time, the duration and/or the number of vehicle downtimes is redetermined at least once during vehicle utilization.
However, DeVault discloses the vehicle energy management system that continuously updates the plans by repeatedly calculating (redetermining) a straight-line distance to a future destination to decide when to initiate the depleting phase ([0010] [0078]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed redetermining of a charging status area and the downtime at least one during vehicle utilization because the system recomputes the planning variables while the vehicle is being used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy management system of the base system to include the redetermining control strategy as taught in DeVault based on the motivation to maintain the accuracy of the planning as conditions change.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Beinborn (US 20230322190 A1)
Miura (US 8022674 B2)
Yoshino (JP 2007018851 A)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5 and 6, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 10 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant alleges that the prior art combination does not teach the amended claims directed to a “utility vehicle, that is a vehicle having 3rd part elements that are run by electricity for purposes outside of the operation of the vehicle.” The Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 merely recites a “utility vehicle” and in the alternative limitation of a “third-party consumer (4) during the vehicle downtime”. The claim does not recite or require that the utility vehicle carry any element run by electricity for purposes outside the vehicle’s operation.
Applicant alleges that Saito power is used to run the ventilation system in the passenger compartment but does not disclose the use of that power for auxiliary equipment such as a concrete mixer or crane so that the required power is “not possible in the cited combination” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not look at such a combination”. The Examiner disagrees. The claim recites no such requirement. The terms “substantial power”, “concrete mixer” and “crane” appear in the specification but not in the claims, which recites only “a third-party consumer (4)” the stored energy is “sufficient to run” with no power magnitude requirement or equipment type. Furthermore, Saito teaches the boil-off power “may well be sufficient to power additional apparatus” which includes the vehicle’s HVAC system ([0037]) and the Applicant’s own specification lists a “cooling unit” as a “third-party consumer” (Page 11).
Applicant alleges that the prior art reference DeVault “does not touch on this feature and only notes that the use of range of power in the manner shown in claims 3 and 7 here.” The Examiner disagrees. DeVault was not relied upon for the third-party consumer feature and is applied only to the upper/lower limit feature of claim 3 and the redetermination of claim 7. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected based on a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amended claims.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights