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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 14, 15 and 17-35 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09 February 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 06/26/2024 and 02/17/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 14-15, 17-29 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.
Regarding Claim 14 (similarly claim 25), the recited limitations “receiving,…, the vehicle being powered by at least one of a fuel cell or a battery;…sending,…, a command to the fuel cell based on the difference…” is indefinite. It is unclear and confusing to the Examiner because the phrase “at least one of a fuel cell or a battery” permits three logical interpretation of the vehicle’s power system, that is, (i) the vehicle is powered only by a fuel cell; (ii) the vehicle is powered only by a battery; (iii) the vehicle is powered by both a fuel cell and a battery; however, the last limitation/step of the method unconditionally requires “sending…a command to the fuel cell…” which presumes that a fuel cell is always present, even in embodiments where the vehicle is powered only by a battery. As a result, the claim includes embodiments that are logically contradictory: a method that requires sending a command to a component (i.e. fuel cell) that may not exist under the claim’s own language. Accordingly, the limitation renders the claim to be indefinite because it is unclear how the method could be practiced in battery only power system embodiment when no fuel cell is present. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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) 14, 23-25, 30 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bromgren (WO 2024/088523 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2009/0259363 A1 hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 30 (similarly claims 14 and 25), Bromgren teaches A fuel cell truck (see at least Fig. 1 Abstract [0007, 0047]: A vehicle (e.g. a truck) comprising a fuel cell system (FCS) and an electric energy story system (EESS).), comprising:
a processor, a fuel cell, and a battery, (see at least Fig. 1 Abstract [0007, 0047]: A vehicle (e.g. a truck) comprising a fuel cell system (FCS) and an electric energy story system (EESS) and a control system 1 for controlling the powertrain 100. )wherein the processor is configured to:
receive, by a processor, position information for a first position of a vehicle, the vehicle being powered by at least one of a fuel cell or a battery; (see at least Fig. 4 [0007-0072]: A fuel cell vehicle comprising a control system with a route planner configured to determine target SOC levels along a planned route and continuously control the power train in dependence on a look-ahead portion of the route located immediately ahead of the vehicle. That is, controlling a vehicle along a look-ahead portion of the route requires knowing the vehicle’s current position along the route.)
interpolating, by the processor, an interpolated state of charge of the battery based at least in part on the first position of the vehicle; (see at least Fig. 4 [0007-0072]: Determine a respective target state of charge (SOC) level for the electrical energy storage system (EESS) at one or more respective target points (T1-T6) along a planned route for the vehicle; continuously control the flow of energy in dependence on operating constraints along a look-ahead portion of the planned route located immediately ahead of the vehicle during operation. Although Bromgren does not explicitly use the terms interpolating SOC, it discloses that the target SOC levels at discrete points along a planned route are predetermined and continuous control is performed based on the look-ahead portion requires SOC values interpolation between target points in order to provide smooth input for continuous powertrain control.
calculating, by the processor, a difference between the interpolated state of charge of the battery and a planned state of charge of the battery at a second position that is after the first position, the planned state of charge being based on a first trajectory; (see at least Fig. 4 [0007-0072]: Determine a respective target state of charge (SOC) level for the electrical energy storage system (EESS) at one or more respective target points (T1-T6) along a planned route for the vehicle; continuously control the flow of energy in dependence on operating constraints along a look-ahead portion of the planned route located immediately ahead of the vehicle during operation. Examiner notes that controlling the flow of energy in dependence on the determined target SOC levels at target points within the look-ahead portion would require calculating a difference/error between the actual/interpolated SOC and the target SOC at a future position as standard feedback/feed-forward control mechanism for regulating FCS and EESS output.) and
sending, by the processor, a command to the fuel cell based on the difference between the interpolated state of charge and the planned state of charge. (see at least Fig. 4 [0007-0072]: Continuously control the flow of energy from FCS in dependence of the determined respective target SOC levels and target brake distribution of the respective target points which are located within the look-ahead portion.)
it may be alleged that Bromgren does not explicitly interpolating, by the processor, an interpolated state of charge of the battery based at least in part on the first position of the vehicle;
Li is directed to power management systems and methods in hybrid vehicle, Li teaches interpolating, by the processor, an interpolated state of charge of the battery based at least in part on the first position of the vehicle; (see at least Fig. 8 [0019, 0049-0075]: An effective way to solve the cost function numerically is through quantization and interpolation. For continuous state space (e.g. vehicle speed, battery SOC) and control space (e.g. desired output from power source and motor, and command to transmission), the state and control values are first discredited into finite grids. At each step of the optimization search, the function Jk [x(k)] is evaluated only at the grid points of the state variables. If the next state x(k+1) does not fall exactly on a quantized value, then the value of Jk *[x(k+1)] as well as G[x(N)] are determined through linear interpolation. At each step, the backward DP with interpolation method was used. For some cases, the vehicle can be assumed fully charged to the highest healthy level, typically SOC of 0.8, while the healthy low level of SOC is 0.3. In these instances, the DP problem is solved with the initial and terminal values of SOC at 0.8 and 0.3, respectively, as boundary conditions. That is, the system solves a dynamic programming problem over a continuous sate space including position and SOC using quantization and interpolation, which yields SOC values at arbitrary positions via interpolation between discretized grid points.)
calculating, by the processor, a difference between the interpolated state of charge of the battery and a planned state of charge of the battery at a second position that is after the first position, the planned state of charge being based on a first trajectory; (see at least Fig. 8 [0019, 0049-0075]: To determine the estimated ΔSOC and Δfuel for each sub-segment, the total power demand (speed x torque) and selected PSR is used to determine the power demand from the ICE and electric motor (for the selected PSR). The fuel rate can be found from a fuel map for the hybrid vehicle based on the average speed and the torque. The Δfuel is equal to the product of the fuel rate and the predicted driving time of the sub-segment. The ΔSOC is equal to the numerical integration for the battery dynamics within the sub-segment driving time. The dynamic programming framework produces an optimal soc trajectory (planned soc vs. position), and control decisions are based on deviation between actual/interpolated soc and desired soc along the route, suggesting calculating a difference between interpolated soc and desired soc.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bromgren’s control system for controlling a fuel cell hybrid vehicle system to incorporate the technique of dynamic programming approach through quantization and interpolation as taught by Li with reasonable expectation of success allowing the vehicle to plan ahead, optimize globally and execute locally over the entire trip and doing so improve consistency across different driving scenarios.
Regarding claim 23 (similarly claim 33), the combination of Bromgren in view of Li teaches The method of claim 14,
Bromgren further teaches wherein the position information comprises a relative vehicle position within a segment of the first trajectory. (see at least Fig. 4 [0007-0072]: A fuel cell vehicle comprising a control system with a route planner configured to determine target SOC levels along a planned route and continuously control the power train in dependence on a look-ahead portion of the route located immediately ahead of the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 24 (similarly claim 34), the combination of Bromgren in view of Li teaches The method of claim 14, further comprising
Bromgren further teaches determining, before sending the command to the fuel cell, the command based on a least a road grade of a segment of the first trajectory. (see at least Fig. 4 [0007-0072]: The operating constraints which are used by the controller PEM may be at least one of a set vehicle speed associated with the look-ahead portion LP, a topography associated with the look-ahead portion LP and a vehicle weight. The topography may necessitate a higher power output from the FCS and/or the EESS during an uphill climb, and may result in a lower power output from the FCS and/or the EESS during downhill driving.)
Claim(s) 15, 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bromgren in view of Li and Ida et al. (US 2023/0253590 A1 hereinafter Ida).
Regarding claims 31 (similarly Claims 15 and 26), the combination of Bromgren in view of Li teaches The method of claim 30,
It may be alleged that the combination of Bromgren in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein the command is one of (i) to increase a power output of the fuel cell based on the interpolated state of charge of the battery or (ii) to decrease a power output of the fuel cell based on the interpolated state of charge of the battery.
Ida is directed to fuel cell system and method for controlling fuel cell system, Ida teaches (see at least Fig. 7-8 [0063-0075]: The storage battery controller 7 calculates a difference ΔS between the predicted SOC plan value and a present SOC, and compares the difference ΔS with a threshold value Sa. When the difference ΔS is within the threshold value Sa, an output of the fuel cell 4 is not to be changed. When the difference ΔS exceeds the threshold value Sa, the residual capacity G of the storage battery 3 is recalculated and notified to the fuel cell controller 8. When the difference ΔS exceeds the threshold value Sa, the fuel cell controller 8 recalculates the full-charge necessary electric power amount P and a fuel cell secondary adjustment output Q2 by using the recalculated residual capacity G, and operates the fuel cell 4 with the calculated fuel cell secondary adjustment output Q2.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bromgren and Li to incorporate the technique of changing a power output of the fuel cell based on a difference of planned SOC and actual SOC measured as taught by Ida with reasonable expectation of success to provide a fuel cell system control method that minimizes deterioration of a fuel cell and storage battery (Ida [0006]).
Claim(s) 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bromgren in view of Li and Lane (US 2023/0168696 A1).
Regarding claim 17 (similarly claim 27), the combination of Bromgren in view of Li teaches The method of claim 14,further comprising:
It may be alleged that the combination of Bromgren in view of Li does not explicitly teach receiving, by the processor, an actual state of charge of the battery in response to arriving at the second position; and
identifying, by the processor, a second trajectory in response to the actual state of charge being different than the planned state of charge.
Lane is directed to battery management for machine service operations, Lane teaches receiving, by the processor, an actual state of charge of the battery in response to arriving at the second position; and identifying, by the processor, a second trajectory in response to the actual state of charge being different than the planned state of charge. (see at least Fig. 1, 3 [0014, 0047-0048, 0082-0093]: The system can determine an updated current SoC of the battery and determine whether the updated expected destination SoC can satisfy the target SoC. If the updated the expected destination SoC is below a minimum value of the target SoC, the system can dynamically adjust the route to add a detour to increase the SoC of the battery.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bromgren and Li to incorporate the technique of modifying a traversal route upon determining the actual state of charge of the battery deviates from the planned soc above a predetermined threshold as taught by Lane with reasonable expectation of success to ensure the fuel cell and battery operation efficiency.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bromgren in view of Li and Park (US 2021/0347265 A1).
Regarding claim 18 (similarly claim 28), the combination of Bromgren in view of Li teaches The method of claim 14, further comprising
It may be alleged that the combination of Bromgren in view of Li does not explicitly teach commanding, by the processor, a thermal management module (TMM) to cool a brake resistor based on the difference between the interpolated state of charge of the battery and the planned state of charge of the battery.
Park is directed to regenerative braking control system for a vehicle, Park teaches commanding, by the processor, a thermal management module (TMM) to cool a brake resistor based on the difference between the interpolated state of charge of the battery and the planned state of charge of the battery. (see at least [0039, 0058-0074]: The brake resistor and the heater may convert surplus electrical energy produced by the electric motor into thermal energy, whereby an assistant braking force may be continuously generated by continuous reverse torque of the electric motor. Further, when a State of Charge (SOC) of the battery is 100%, electrical energy produced by the electric motor may wholly become surplus electrical energy and may be converted and consumed as thermal energy by the brake resistor and the heater, whereby an assistant braking force may be maximally generated by continuous reverse torque of the electric motor.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bromgren and Li to incorporate the technique of dissipating excessive energy generated in the brake resistor by active cooling the resistor using a liquid cooling loop as taught by Park with reasonable expectation of success to prevent thermal overload and component failure and thus ensuring safe fuel cell hybrid vehicle operation.
Regarding claim 19 (similarly claim 29), the combination of Bromgren in view of Li and Park teaches The method of claim 18, further comprising:
It may be alleged that the combination of Bromgren in view of Li does not explicitly teach commanding, by the TMM, the brake resistor to begin consuming power based on the difference between the interpolated state of charge of the battery and the planned state of charge of the battery.
Park is directed to regenerative braking control system for a vehicle, Park teaches commanding, by the TMM, the brake resistor to begin consuming power based on the difference between the interpolated state of charge of the battery and the planned state of charge of the battery. (see at least [0039, 0058-0074]: The brake resistor and the heater may convert surplus electrical energy produced by the electric motor into thermal energy, whereby an assistant braking force may be continuously generated by continuous reverse torque of the electric motor. Further, when a State of Charge (SOC) of the battery is 100%, electrical energy produced by the electric motor may wholly become surplus electrical energy and may be converted and consumed as thermal energy by the brake resistor and the heater, whereby an assistant braking force may be maximally generated by continuous reverse torque of the electric motor.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bromgren and Li to incorporate the technique of dissipating excessive energy generated in the brake resistor by active cooling the resistor using a liquid cooling loop as taught by Park with reasonable expectation of success to prevent thermal overload and component failure and thus ensuring safe fuel cell hybrid vehicle operation.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bromgren in view of Li and Vallur Rajendan e al. (US 2022/0255100 A1 hereinafter Vallur Rajendran).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bromgren in view of Li teaches The method of claim 14, further comprising
It may be alleged that the combination of Bromgren in view of Li does not explicitly teach filtering, by the processor, a planned fuel cell power output based on the interpolated state of charge of the battery.
Vallur Rajendran is directed to look ahead energy management control system and method to improve fuel cell system efficiency and performance, Vallur Rajendran teaches filtering, by the processor, a planned fuel cell power output based on the interpolated state of charge of the battery. (see at least Fig. 5A-6 [0084-0086]: when look ahead data comprises information 12 on route and/or traffic conditions (e.g., grade, speed limit etc.), a reasonable estimate or prediction can be made on the state of charge (SOC) trajectory of a vehicle 200 (while assuming the vehicle to be a FCEV or a BEV), such as the variation of the fuel cell 110 and/or the battery 220 state of charge (SOC) with time. This look ahead prediction or estimate about the fuel cell 110 can further predict and/or estimate optimal instances to turn on the fuel cell 110 during a route or duty cycle.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bromgren and Li to incorporate the technique of using look ahead prediction/estimation about the fuel cell to predict/estimate optimal instances to turn on the fuel cell during a route or duty cycle as taught by Vallur Rajendra with reasonable expectation of success to improve the performance, durability and life of fuel cell systems (Vallur Rajendra [0002]).
Claim(s) 21 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bromgren in view of Li, Ida and Vallur Rajendan.
Regarding claim 21 (similarly claim 32), the combination of Bromgren in view of Li and Ida teaches The method of claim 15,
It may be alleged that the combination of Bromgren in view of Li and Ida does not explicitly teach wherein the command is to increase the power output of the fuel cell thereby causing the state of charge of the battery to increase.
Vallur Rajendran is directed to look ahead energy management control system and method to improve fuel cell system efficiency and performance, Vallur Rajendran teaches wherein the command is to increase the power output of the fuel cell thereby causing the state of charge of the battery to increase. (see at least Fig. 7-9 [0094-0096]: a FCEV 200 operating at a cruise speed that is sustaining charge may incorporate look ahead data indicating that a steep positive grade is upcoming, which can prompt, initiative, or enable a precharge of the fuel cell 110 to timely ramp up power output in order to meet the near future increased power demand without experiencing any transients or delay of power output from the fuel cell system 100 (see FIG. 9). This anticipatory air flow ramp up that occurs during the precharge stage may increase power output of the fuel cell system 100 by increasing oxygen 124 supply and/or reducing hydrogen supply.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bromgren, Li and Ida to incorporate the technique of increasing the power output of the fuel cell thereby causing the state of charge of the battery to increase as taught by Vallur Rajendra with reasonable expectation of success to improve the performance, durability and life of fuel cell systems (Vallur Rajendra [0002]).
Claim(s) 22 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bromgren in view of Li, Ida and Ryu (US 2023/0062541 A1).
Regarding claim 22 (similarly claim 35), the combination of Bromgren in view of Li and Ida teaches The method of claim 15,
It may be alleged that the combination of Bromgren in view of Li and Ida does not explicitly teach wherein the command is to decrease the power output of the fuel cell thereby causing the state of charge of the battery to decrease.
Ryu is directed to system and method for operating fuel cell, Ryu teaches wherein the command is to decrease the power output of the fuel cell thereby causing the state of charge of the battery to decrease. (see at least [0035]: when the fuel cell is exposed to a high output section during a preset time, in order to prevent the durability deterioration of the fuel cell, the fuel cell may be lowered less than a preset output (output limit mode) or enter a mode (FCS: fuel cell stop) in which the vehicle stops outputting and is driven only by the battery output.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bromgren, Li and Ida to incorporate the technique of decreasing the power output of the fuel cell thereby causing the state of charge of the battery to decrease as taught by Ryu with reasonable expectation to ensure fuel cell durability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights