DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ the future shutdown time period is based on at least one of the following: manual input from an operator;
traffic information relating to a vehicle in which the fuel cell system is provided; terrain information relating to a vehicle in which the fuel cell system is provided; map data relating to a vehicle in which the fuel cell system is provided; and historical vehicle and/or operator behavior data” in lines 2-7 is improper alternative claiming. Alternative claiming may be set forth as "a material (or at least one material) selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is (or is at least one of) A, B, or C" see MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ the future shutdown time period is based on at least one of the following: manual input from an operator; traffic information relating to a vehicle in which the fuel cell system is provided; terrain information relating to a vehicle in which the fuel cell system is provided; map data relating to a vehicle in which the fuel cell system is provided; or historical vehicle and/or operator behavior data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 4 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.
5. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the shutdown time period" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the future shutdown time period" as there is antecedent basis.
6. Claims 13, 14, and 15 are 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 13 recites the limitation “a control unit”. It is not clear whether it is the same or different control unit as recited in claim 12 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the control unit”.
7. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected as depending from claim 13.
8. Claim 17 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.
9. Claim 17 recites the limitation "said program product" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "said program code" as there is antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 1 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riley et al. (US 2018/0019485) as cited in IDS dated 4/5/24.
Regarding claim 1, Riley discloses a method for operating a fuel cell system (claim 16) comprising one or more fuel cells (12, Fig. 1, [0013]) and a cooling system (50, Fig. 3, [0019]) with a cooling fluid for cooling the one or more fuel cells during use([0019], claim 3), the method comprising: obtaining a shutdown request for the fuel cell system(Fig. 4 step 102, [0023]); predicting a future shutdown time period(Fig. 4 step 104, [0022], [0024]-[0025]); in response to detecting that the future shutdown time period is shorter than a predetermined degradation time window for the one or more fuel cells(degradation of the fuel cell will occur in the case of freezing in Fig. 4 step 106, [0026]), operating the cooling system so as to reduce the temperature of the one or more fuel cells(Fig. 4 step 124, [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 10, Riley discloses predicting the future shutdown time period is based on at least one of the following: manual input from an operator([0022]-[0023]); map data relating to a vehicle in which the fuel cell system is provided([0022], [0024]); or historical vehicle and/or operator behavior data([0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Riley discloses the predetermined degradation time window for the one or more fuel cells is variable and varies with respect to detected and/or predicted ambient conditions, such as ambient temperature ([0022], [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Riley discloses a control unit for operating a fuel cell system (controller 80, Fig. 3, [0020]) comprising one or more fuel cells (12, Fig. 1, [0013]) and a cooling system (50, Fig. 3, [0019]) with a cooling fluid for cooling the one or more fuel cells during use([0019], claim 3), wherein the control unit is configured to perform the method according to claim 1(claim 16).
Regarding claim 13, Riley discloses a fuel cell system (Fig. 1, [0007], [0013]) comprising one or more fuel cells(12, Fig. 1, [0013]) and a cooling system (50, Fig. 3, [0019]) with a cooling fluid for cooling the one or more fuel cells during use([0019], claim 3), wherein the fuel cell system further comprises the control unit according to claim 12(controller 80, Fig. 3, [0020]).
Regarding claim 14, Riley discloses further comprising a temperature sensor for measuring a temperature indicative of the temperature of the one or more fuel cells([0020], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Riley discloses a vehicle comprising the fuel cell system according to claim 13 (claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Riley discloses a computer program comprising program code for performing the method of claim 1([0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Riley discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the method of claim 1 when said program code is run on a control unit([0040]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
15. Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2018/0019485) as cited in IDS dated 4/5/24 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2016/0006059) as cited in IDS dated 4/5/24.
Regarding claim 2, Riley does not explicitly disclose the cooling system is operated until a target temperature of the one or more fuel cells is reached.
Kwon teaches a driving control method of a fuel cell system in which a recovery driving mode is selected according to a status of a fuel cell stack([0011]). Kwon teaches the cooling system is operated until a target temperature of the one or more fuel cells is reached([0088]-[0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Riley with the cooling system is operated until a target temperature of the one or more fuel cells is reached as taught by Kwon as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3, modified Riley discloses the target temperature of the one or more fuel cells corresponds to a target temperature of the cooling fluid(Kwon, [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Riley discloses the target temperature is determined as a function of the future shutdown time period for the one or more fuel cells(Kwon, [0090]).
16. Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2018/0019485) as cited in IDS dated 4/5/24 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito et al. (US 2009/0176135) as cited in IDS dated 4/5/24.
Regarding claim 5, Riley does not explicitly disclose operating the cooling system so as to reduce the temperature of the one or more fuel cells comprises powering the cooling system by the one or more fuel cells while the one or more fuel cells is/are running, and in response to determining that cooling of the one or more fuel cells is complete, initiating a shutting down procedure of the one or more fuel cells and the cooling system.
Saito teaches a fuel cell power plant (9) includes a stack (10) of fuel cells, each including anode (11), cathodes (12), coolant channels (13) and either (a) a coolant accumulator (60) and pump (61) or (b) a condenser and cooler fan(abstract, Fig. 1). Saito teaches operating the cooling system so as to reduce the temperature of the one or more fuel cells comprises powering the cooling system by the one or more fuel cells while the one or more fuel cells is/are running, and in response to determining that cooling of the one or more fuel cells is complete, initiating a shutting down procedure of the one or more fuel cells and the cooling system([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Riley with operating the cooling system so as to reduce the temperature of the one or more fuel cells comprises powering the cooling system by the one or more fuel cells while the one or more fuel cells is/are running, and in response to determining that cooling of the one or more fuel cells is complete, initiating a shutting down procedure of the one or more fuel cells and the cooling system as taught by Saito as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 6, modified Riley discloses powering the cooling system by the one or more fuel cells while the one or more fuel cells is/are running comprises running the one or more fuel cells so as to generate less power compared to power generated before obtaining the shutdown request(Saito [0006]).
17. Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2018/0019485) as cited in IDS dated 4/5/24 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison (US 2020/0391876) as cited in IDS dated 4/5/24.
Regarding claim 7, Riley discloses a battery (24, Fig. 1, [0014]) but does not explicitly disclose operating the cooling system so as to reduce the temperature of the one or more fuel cells comprises powering the cooling system by an auxiliary power source.
Morrison teaches on-board fuel cell and/or motor or generator powered electric (low or no emission) multirotor aircraft, including Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) aircraft, where the fuel cell module or other source on-board source of power transforms fuel into electricity that is then used to operate multiple electric motors ([0002]). Morrison teaches operating the cooling system so as to reduce the temperature of the one or more fuel cells comprises powering the cooling system by an auxiliary power source([0024]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Riley with operating the cooling system so as to reduce the temperature of the one or more fuel cells comprises powering the cooling system by an auxiliary power source as applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 8, modified Riley discloses further comprising initiating a shutting down procedure of the one or more fuel cells before operating the cooling system so as to reduce the temperature of the one or more fuel cells(Riley [0022]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Riley discloses powering the cooling system by the auxiliary power source is performed in response to determining that the auxiliary power source has sufficient power and/or energy to operate the cooling system(Morrison [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights