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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and request for reconsideration of application 18/743,987 filed on March 02, 2026.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the 112(b) of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the 112(b) of that action is withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 was previously introduced.
Claims 1-18, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 19 is cancelled.
Claims 1-18, and 20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (2021/0162885) in view of Buchi (US 20080038595 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Braun discloses a computer system (FIG. 1, control device 80) comprising processing circuitry (FIG. 2, 90, ¶0028) configured to:
determine at least one vehicle system being in an active mode, said at least one vehicle system building up a need for conditioning when in the active mode and/or in an inactive mode (¶0037, “operating mode.. delivery mode”, ¶0038, “The data ascertained within the first learning function 90 can then be used in order to adapt corresponding actions in the fuel cell system 22”), determine that no request for usage of the at least one vehicle system is present, thereby triggering a request for shut down of said at least one vehicle system (¶0051, “If the target is achieved, the fuel cell system 22 or the air conveyance subsystem 30 can be completely shut down”), determine a need for conditioning of said at least one vehicle system, delay shut down of said at least one vehicle system, and initiate conditioning of said at least one vehicle system (¶0042, “the shutdown of the fuel cell system 22 can be delayed; this continues after the vehicle 10 has been parked for a certain period of time during the extra running time. The fuel cell system 22, like the air conveyance subsystem 30 as well, can be further operated when idling, thereby generating an electrical idling power”).
Braun does not explicitly disclose but, Buchi teaches wherein the conditioning includes at least one of balancing of charge distribution of a rechargeable energy storage system, temperature control of a rechargeable energy storage system, controlling charging and discharging processes of a rechargeable energy storage system to maintain a battery within the recommended state-of-charge range, or humidification control of a fuel cell system (¶0036, “vehicle will be stopped with the maximum electrical energy stored in its array of super-condensers, after actuating the shutting-down element but before closing the oxygen feed valve the charge level of the electrical energy storage means is checked…the cell is kept in operation and the energy management unit is switched over to a mode in which the electrical energy storage means are recharged”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in Braun with the charging process taught in Buchi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a reduction of risk that hot spots harmful to the polymer membrane.
Regarding 2, Braun discloses shut down said at least one vehicle system after completing said conditioning of said at least one vehicle system (¶0042, “] As a first action, the shutdown of the fuel cell system 22 can be delayed; this continues after the vehicle 10 has been parked for a certain period of time during the extra running time”).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Braun discloses further comprising at least one fuel cell system (abstract).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (2021/0162885), Buchi (US 20080038595 A1) and further in view of DOKI (2020/0149503).
Regarding claim 3, Braun does not explicitly disclose but, DOKI teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a request for active usage of said at least one vehicle system, and terminate the conditioning based on the request for active usage (¶0117).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in Braun with the termination process taught in DOKI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted avoiding any redundant process in order to improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, DOKI further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a request for cancelling conditioning of said at least one vehicle system, and terminate the conditioning based on the request for cancelling (¶0165).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in Braun with the termination process taught in DOKI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted avoiding any redundant process in order operate the system efficiently in response to changes in operating conditions.
Regarding claim 5, DOKI further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a request for shut down of said at least one vehicle system after initiating conditioning of said at least one vehicle system, and terminate the conditioning based on the request for shut down (¶0117).
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (2021/0162885), Buchi (US 20080038595 A1), and in view of David (JP,2008-501225,A).
Regarding claim 6, Braun does not explicitly disclose but, David teaches wherein said at least one vehicle system is a rechargeable energy storage system or a fuel cell system (page 15, line 13-27).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in Braun with the termination process taught in David with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted managing power modes of the controllers to reduce unnecessary power consumption without interfering with the experience of the user.
Regarding claim 7, David further teaches wherein said at least one vehicle system is a rechargeable energy storage system or a fuel cell system, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: shut down said at least one vehicle system after completing said conditioning of said at least one vehicle system, receive a request for active usage of said at least one vehicle system, receive a request for cancelling conditioning of said at least one vehicle system, or receive a request for shut down of said at least one vehicle system, and terminate the conditioning based on the request for active usage, cancelling, and/or shutdown (page 13, line 14-28).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in Braun with the termination process taught in David with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted managing power modes of the controllers to reduce unnecessary power consumption without interfering with the experience of the user.
Regarding claim 9, David teaches further comprising at least one rechargeable energy storage system (page 13, line 14-28).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in Braun with the termination process taught in David with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted managing power modes of the controllers to reduce unnecessary power consumption without interfering with the experience of the user.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (2021/0162885), Buchi (US 20080038595 A1), and further in view of Rocroi (2023/0075700).
Regarding claim 17, Braun does not explicitly disclose but, Rocroi teaches determining, by the processing circuitry, a plurality of vehicle systems being in an active mode, each vehicle system building up a need for conditioning when in the active mode and/or in an inactive mode, determining, by the processing circuitry, that no request for usage of at least one specific vehicle system is present, triggering, by the processing circuitry, a request for shut down of each vehicle systems, determining, by the processing circuitry, a need for conditioning of said at least one specific vehicle system, delaying, by the processing circuitry, shut down of said at least one specific vehicle system, and initiating, by the processing circuitry, conditioning of said at least one specific vehicle system (¶0007).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in Braun with the plurality of devices taught in Rocroi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted managing power modes of the controllers to reduce unnecessary power consumption without interfering with the experience of the user.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (2021/0162885), Buchi (US 20080038595 A1), and further in view of Forte (CN 106133997 A).
Regarding claim 18, Braun does not explicitly disclose but, Forte teaches further comprising: shutting down, without any delay, any vehicle system for which no need for conditioning is determined (page 09, lines 25-35).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in Braun with the shutting down without delay taught in Forte with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement of accuracy and quick start and shutdown.
Regarding claims 11-16, claims 11-16 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1-10.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. RILEY (20180019485) discloses A fuel cell system in a vehicle includes a fuel cell stack and a cooling system for cooling the fuel cell stack. The cooling system has a radiator and at least one pump configured to supply coolant to the fuel cell stack. A controller operates the cooling system to actively cool the fuel cell stack while the vehicle is shut down in response to conditions indicating that the next time the vehicle will be started, it will be a cold start. The controller can then, subsequent to initiating the cooling, purge the fuel cell stack (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667