DETAILED ACTION
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 made FINAL. Claims 1-10 and 21-27 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1-8 and 10 have been amended; claims 11-20 have been canceled; and claims 21-27 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/1/2026, 6/8/2026, and 7/24/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous § 112(f) interpretations; withdraws the previous § 102 and § 103 rejections; maintains the previous double patenting rejection; adds the below § 112(b) rejections; and adds the below § 103 rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 10 under Fukami et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0194281 to Lane et al. and U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0296666 to Kitamoto et al.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 under Fukami et al. and Asano have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0296666 to Kitamoto et al.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the double patenting rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not provide any basis for traversal other than stating that the rejection is moot because it didn’t address amended claims 1 and 10. Therefore, Examiner updated the rejection, as set forth below, to address the amended claims 1 and 10 and maintains the rejection.
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 22 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 22 recites “when the work vehicle travels along the predetermined travel route in the most recently” in lines 3 and 6. This isn’t a complete sentence. Nor is the term “most recently” contained in the specification to provide guidance on what Applicant intended to mean by this term. As such, claim 22 is indefinite.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean a route that the vehicle recently traveled.
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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 22, 23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0328441 to Fukami et al. (previously of record) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0194281 to Lane et al. (newly of record).
Regarding claim 1, Fukami et al. discloses:
A control system configured to control a work vehicle including a fuel cell and a battery (¶ [0037] describing the fuel cell and battery), the control system comprising at least one processor (¶ [0023] controller), the at least one processor configured to:
determine a target power generation amount of the fuel cell, based on a time series of measurement values relating to power while the work vehicle travels along a predetermined travel route (¶ [0048] describing the controller determining a target power generation amount based on a time series of measurement values as the vehicle travels the route);
control the fuel cell to output the target power generation amount while the work vehicle travels along the travel route (¶ [0048] describing the controller controlling the fuel cell to output the target power while the vehicle travels the route); and
control charging or discharging of the battery, based on a difference between required power required for driving the work vehicle and the target power generation amount while the work vehicle travels along the travel route (¶ [0048] describing the controller charging and discharging the battery to maintain the power generation to remain within a certain threshold level while traveling the route).
Fukami et al. does not expressly disclose that the target power generation is for a predetermined travel route in the past.
Lane et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of power management data from predetermined routes previously traveled by the vehicle (¶ [0066] describing using historical power consumption data from previously traveled routes, including between all intermediate points along the route).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate power management data from previous travel on a predetermined route, as taught by Lane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in accessing information about the route, including previous velocities, time of day, weather conditions, road conditions, operator, etc. in determining the target power generation (Lane et al. at ¶ [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Fukami et al. further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor determines the target power generation amount of the fuel cell, based on the time series of the measurement values relating to the power for each of a plurality of times of travelling of the work vehicle on the travel route (¶ [0048] describing determining the target power generation regardless of the number of times the vehicle travels the route because the target power determination is not route dependent and can change each time the vehicle travels the route).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Fukami et al. further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor determines the target power generation amount of the fuel cell, based on the time series of the measurement values relating to charging power and discharging power while the work vehicle travels along the predetermined travel route (¶ [0048] describing determining the target power generation based on charging power and discharging power while the vehicle travels).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Fukami et al. further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor determines the target power generation amount of the fuel cell, based on the time series of the measurement values relating to running power and regenerative power while the work vehicle travels along the predetermined travel route (¶ [0048] describing determining the target power generation based on running power and regenerative power while the vehicle travels the route).
Claim 9 contains all the elements of claim 1, but with the additional elements of a fuel cell (Figure 1, Ref. No. 104 fuel cell) and a battery (Figure 1, Ref. No. 194 battery). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Lane et al. further discloses:
wherein the power while the work vehicle travels along the predetermined travel route is measured when the work vehicle travels along the predetermined travel route in the most recently, the at least one processor determines the target power generation amount, based on the time series of the measurement values when the work vehicle travels along the predetermined travel route in the most recently (¶ [0066] describing using historical power consumption data from previously traveled routes, including between all intermediate points along the route, which includes any route recently taken).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate power management data from previous travel on a predetermined route, as taught by Lane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in accessing information about the route, including previous velocities, time of day, weather conditions, road conditions, operator, etc. in determining the target power generation (Lane et al. at ¶ [0066]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Lane et al. further discloses:
determining the target power generation amount, based on statistical processing of the measurement values while the work vehicle travels along a plurality of the travel routes in the past (¶ [0066] describing using historical power consumption data from previously traveled routes, including between all intermediate points along the route, which includes any route recently taken).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate power management data from previous travel on a predetermined route, as taught by Lane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in accessing information about the route, including previous velocities, time of day, weather conditions, road conditions, operator, etc. in determining the target power generation (Lane et al. at ¶ [0066]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Fukami et al. further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor calculates a charging amount and a discharging amount of the battery based on the time series of measurement values, does not update the target power generation, when an absolute value of a difference between the charging amount and the discharging amount of the battery does not exceed a predetermined threshold value (¶ [0048] describing calculating the charging and discharging amount of the battery and updating the target power generation when the value exceeds a predetermined threshold value and not updating the target power generation when the value does not exceed the predetermined threshold value).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Fukami et al. further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor calculates a charging amount and a discharging amount of the battery based on the time series of measurement values, when an absolute value of a difference between the charging amount and the discharging amount of the battery exceeds a predetermined threshold value, decrease the target power generation amount when the charging amount is larger than the discharging amount, and increase the target power generation amount when the discharging amount is larger than the charging amount (¶ [0048] describing calculating the charging and discharging amount of the battery and decreasing the target power generation when the value exceeds a predetermined threshold value and increasing the target power generation when the value does not exceed the predetermined threshold value).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Fukami et al. further discloses:
wherein the measurement values relating to the power is SOC of the battery, the at least one processor determine the target power generation amount based on a difference between SOC in a start point of the specified time zone, and SOC in a end point of the specified time zone (¶ [0048] describing that the measurement values are based on the difference in the SOC of the battery at different times).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami et al. and Lane et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0296666 to Kitamoto et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Fukami et al. nor Lane et al. expressly disclose specifying a time zone in which the work vehicle travels along the travel route by specifying a timing at which the work vehicle exists at a specification point on the travel route, based on measurement data of the work vehicle, wherein the power determination unit determines the target power generation amount, based on the time series of the measurement values of the power in the specified time zone.
Kitamoto et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches specifying a time zone in which the work vehicle travels along the travel route by specifying a timing at which the work vehicle exists at a specification point on the travel route, based on measurement data of the work vehicle, wherein the power determination unit determines the target power generation amount, based on the time series of the measurement values of the power in the specified time zone (¶¶ [0070], [0109] – [0116] describing a time zone when the work, i.e., charge/discharge, is to begin and end between a starting point determined by an input data from a device located on the vehicle and an ending point, i.e., two consecutive timings; see also ¶ [0045] describing use with heavy machinery).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate determining a time zone (or a time in which the vehicle is traveling the route) and determining the target power in the specific time zone, as taught by Kitamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in managing the power load required to perform the work of traveling the route (Kitamoto et al. at ¶¶ [0110], [0111]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fukami et al., Lane et al., and Kitamoto et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2. Kitamoto et al. further discloses:
wherein the travel route is a route in which the specification point is a start point and an end point, and the at least one processor specifies the timing at which the work vehicle is located at the specification point to specify the time zone between two consecutive timings in a plurality of the specified timings as the time zone in which the work vehicle travels along the travel route. (¶¶ [0070], [0109] – [0116] describing a time zone when the work, i.e., charge/discharge, is to begin and end between a starting point (specification point) determined by an input data from a device located on the vehicle and an ending point, i.e., two consecutive timings; see also ¶ [0045] describing use with heavy machinery).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate determining a time zone (or a time in which the vehicle is traveling the route) and determining the target power in the specific time zone, as taught by Kitamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in managing the power load required to perform the work of traveling the route (Kitamoto et al. at ¶¶ [0110], [0111]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Fukami et al. nor Lane et al. expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor determines a constant value of the target power generation amount while the work vehicle travels along the travel route.
Kitamoto et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a constant value of target power generation while the work vehicle travels (¶¶ [0128], [0133], [0134] describing determining a constant power generation while the vehicle travels).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate determining a constant target power generation, as taught by Kitamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in managing the power load required to perform the work of traveling the route (Kitamoto et al. at ¶¶ [0110], [0111]).
Regarding claim 10, Fukami et al. discloses:
A control method for a work vehicle including a fuel cell and a battery (¶ [0037] describing the fuel cell and battery), the method comprising:
determine a target power generation amount of the fuel cell, based on a time series of measurement values relating to power while the work vehicle travels along a predetermined travel route (¶ [0048] describing the controller determining a target power generation amount based on a time series of measurement values as the vehicle travels the route);
control the fuel cell to output the target power generation amount while the work vehicle travels along the travel route (¶ [0048] describing the controller controlling the fuel cell to output the target power while the vehicle travels the route); and
control charging or discharging of the battery, based on a difference between required power required for driving the work vehicle and the target power generation amount while the work vehicle travels along the travel route (¶ [0048] describing the controller charging and discharging the battery to maintain the power generation to remain within a certain threshold level while traveling the route).
Fukami et al. does not expressly disclose that the target power generation is for a predetermined travel route in the past or that the target power generation is constant.
Lane et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of power management data from predetermined routes previously traveled by the vehicle (¶ [0066] describing using historical power consumption data from previously traveled routes, including between all intermediate points along the route).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate power management data from previous travel on a predetermined route, as taught by Lane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in accessing information about the route, including previous velocities, time of day, weather conditions, road conditions, operator, etc. in determining the target power generation (Lane et al. at ¶ [0066]).
Kitamoto et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches generating constant target power (¶¶ [0128], [0133], [0134] describing generating a constant target power generation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate determining a constant target power generation, as taught by Kitamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in managing the power load required to perform the work of traveling the route (Kitamoto et al. at ¶¶ [0110], [0111]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Fukami et al. nor Lane et al. expressly disclose specify timings at which the work vehicle is present in specification points in the travel route, the specification points exclude a start point and an end point in the travel route, determine the target power generation amount, based on the time series of the measurement values of the power between the specification points.
Kitamoto et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches specify timings at which the work vehicle is present in specification points in the travel route, the specification points exclude a start point and an end point in the travel route, determine the target power generation amount, based on the time series of the measurement values of the power between the specification points (¶¶ [0070], [0109] – [0116] describing a time zone when the work, i.e., charge/discharge, is to begin and end between points determined by an input data from a device located on the vehicle, i.e., two consecutive timings that include temporary stopping points between the start and end locations).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate determining a time zone (or a time in which the vehicle is traveling the route) and determining the target power in the specific time zone, as taught by Kitamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in managing the power load required to perform the work of traveling the route (Kitamoto et al. at ¶¶ [0110], [0111]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami et al., Lane et al., and Kitamoto et al., as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0185196 to Asano et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fukami et al., Lane et al., and Kitamoto et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 3.
Neither Fukami et al., Lane et al., nor Kitamoto et al. expressly discloses a pattern determination unit configured to determine whether or not the work vehicle travels along the travel route in a normal pattern in the time zone specified by the time zone specification unit, wherein the power determination unit determines the target power generation amount, based on the time series of the measurement values of the power in the time zone in which it is determined that the work vehicle travels along the travel route in the normal pattern.
Asano et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches a pattern determination unit configured to determine whether or not the work vehicle travels along the travel route in a normal pattern in the time zone specified by the time zone specification unit, wherein the power determination unit determines the target power generation amount, based on the time series of the measurement values of the power in the time zone in which it is determined that the work vehicle travels along the travel route in the normal pattern (¶¶ [0219], [0220] describing determining a vehicle travel pattern and determining the power target power generation amount based on a time series of measurement value of the power while the vehicle is traveling in the normal pattern).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate determining a pattern of vehicle travel and base the target power generation on the vehicle pattern, as taught by Asano et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in eradicating the characteristics that appear in power consumption pattern due to a user’s pattern (Asano et al. at ¶ [0237]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami et al. and Lane et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asano et al.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Fukami et al. and Lane et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Fukami et al. nor Lane et al. expressly discloses when the at least one processor determines that the work vehicle does not the travel along the travel route in a normal pattern in the time zone specified, the at least one processor does not update the target power generation based on the measurement values in the time zone specified.
Asano et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches when the at least one processor determines that the work vehicle does not the travel along the travel route in a normal pattern in the time zone specified, the at least one processor does not update the target power generation based on the measurement values in the time zone specified (¶¶ [0219], [0220] describing determining a vehicle travel pattern and determining the power target power generation amount based on a time series of measurement value of the power while the vehicle is traveling in the normal pattern and while not traveling a normal pattern).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate determining a pattern of vehicle travel and base the target power generation on the vehicle pattern, as taught by Asano et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in eradicating the characteristics that appear in power consumption pattern due to a user’s pattern (Asano et al. at ¶ [0237]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/708,284 in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0194281 to Lane et al. (claims 1 and 10) and U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0296666 to Kitamoto et al. (claim 10). The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference publication are compared in the table below.
App. No. 18/728,479
App. No. 18/708,284
1. A control system configured to control a work vehicle including a fuel cell and a battery, the control system comprising:
a power determination unit configured to determine a target power generation amount of the fuel cell, based on a time series of measurement values relating to power while the work vehicle travels along a predetermined travel route [in the past];
a fuel cell control unit configured to control the fuel cell to output the target power generation amount while the work vehicle travels along the travel route; and
a battery control unit configured to control charging or discharging of the battery, based on a difference between required power required for driving the work vehicle and the target power generation amount while the work vehicle travels along the travel route.
A control system that controls a work vehicle including a fuel cell and a battery, the system comprising:
a route determination unit configured to determine a traveling route of the work vehicle on a work site;
an electric power determination unit configured to determine a target electric power generation of the fuel cell during traveling on the traveling route based on topography of the traveling route;
a fuel cell control unit configured to control the fuel cell such that the target electric power generation is output during traveling on the traveling route;
a battery control unit configured to control charging or discharging of the battery based on a difference between required electric power needed for driving the work vehicle and the target electric power generation during traveling on the traveling route; and
a correction unit configured to acquire corrected electric power that is a difference between basic electric power generation determined in advance and the target electric power generation,
wherein the fuel cell control unit controls the fuel cell based on the basic electric power generation and the corrected electric power, and
the battery control unit controls charging or discharging of the battery based on the required electric power, the basic electric power generation, and the corrected electric power.
10. A control method for a work vehicle including a fuel cell and a battery, the method comprising:
a step of determining a [constant] target power generation amount of the fuel cell, based on a time series of measurement values relating to power while the work vehicle travels along a predetermined travel route [in the past];
a step of controlling the fuel cell to output the target power generation amount while the work vehicle travels along the travel route; and
a step of controlling charging or discharging of the battery, based on a difference between required power required for driving the work vehicle and the target power generation amount while the work vehicle travels along the travel route.
11. A method for controlling a work vehicle including a fuel cell and a battery, the method comprising:
a step of determining a traveling route of the work vehicle on a work site;
a step of determining a target electric power generation of the fuel cell during traveling on the traveling route based on topography of the traveling route;
a step of generating a control signal of the work vehicle according to the traveling route;
a step of controlling the fuel cell such that the target electric power generation is output during traveling on the traveling route;
a step of controlling charging or discharging of the battery based on a difference between required electric power for control according to the control signal and the target electric power generation during traveling on the traveling route; and
a step of acquiring corrected electric power that is a difference between basic electric power generation determined in advance and the target electric power generation,
wherein the fuel cell is controlled based on the basic electric power generation and the corrected electric power, and
charging or discharging of the battery is controlled based on the required electric power, the basic electric power generation, and the corrected electric power.
Claim 1
Claim 1 of the reference patent application recites all the limitations as claim 1 of the instant application except “traveled along a predetermined route in the past.” However, Lane et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of power management data from predetermined routes previously traveled by the vehicle (¶ [0066] describing using historical power consumption data from previously traveled routes, including between all intermediate points along the route).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate power management data from previous travel on a predetermined route, as taught by Lane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in accessing information about the route, including previous velocities, time of day, weather conditions, road conditions, operator, etc. in determining the target power generation (Lane et al. at ¶ [0066]).
Claim 10
Claim 11 of the reference patent application recites all the limitations as claim 10 of the instant application except “traveled along a predetermined route in the past,” and “constant target power generation amount.” However, Lane et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of power management data from predetermined routes previously traveled by the vehicle (¶ [0066] describing using historical power consumption data from previously traveled routes, including between all intermediate points along the route).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate power management data from previous travel on a predetermined route, as taught by Lane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in accessing information about the route, including previous velocities, time of day, weather conditions, road conditions, operator, etc. in determining the target power generation (Lane et al. at ¶ [0066]).
Furthermore, Kitamoto et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches generating constant target power (¶¶ [0128], [0133], [0134] describing generating a constant target power generation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fukami et al.’s invention to incorporate determining a constant target power generation, as taught by Kitamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in managing the power load required to perform the work of traveling the route (Kitamoto et al. at ¶¶ [0110], [0111]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0262253 to Yanagita teaches determining a target power generation and increasing and decreasing the SOC based on the target power generation and the power consumption (Figure 3 and the description thereof);
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0055607 to Tong et al. teaches charging and discharging the battery of a vehicle based on a target power generation and a power consumption (¶¶ [0072] – [0091]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0106726 to Yoshii teaches controlling the SOC of a battery by charging and discharging based on the target power generation and consumption (¶¶ [0098] – [0144]).
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 JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/16/26
Prosecution Insights