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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 04/21/2026. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-18, and 20-23 are pending. Claims 6, 8, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 18 have been amended. The objections to claims 1 and 9 have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-18, and 20-23 are rejected and claim 22 is objected to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
Applicant argues that Koti’s battery power capability, battery state of charge, and battery state of health are not a battery discharge limit, and therefore does not teach the limitations of claim 1
Applicant argues that Kim is directed to braking regeneration and not coasting regeneration, and therefore does not teach the limitations of claim 1
Neither Koti or Kim teach the newly added limitations of amended claim 9.
Regarding argument A, the argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Examiner agrees that Koti does not teach a battery discharge limit as “a maximum safe discharge current the battery can handle without damage”. However, under broadest reasonable interpretation, a battery discharge limit is a limit on the amount of power a battery discharges. Koti is directed towards determining a power split between a fuel cell system and a battery system. In determining this split, a limit on the battery is determined. This could be considered a “battery discharge limit”.
Alternatively, a much more common interpretation of a “discharge limit” for a battery would be a depth of discharge (DoD) limit. Koti teaches, “when the state-of-charge (SoC) of the battery pack 308 is below a SoC threshold (e.g., about 25%) from the nominal state-of-charge (SoC), the system controller 190 of the fuel cell powertrain system 100 or the fuel cell system or fuel cell stack controller 123 may implement a strategy or algorithm that operates the fuel cell system or fuel cell stack 122 in a fixed power level operation in a load-following manner” (par. 50). Therefore, Koti teaches using a discharge limit.
Regarding argument B, the argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Kim states, “the battery disposed in the fuel cell vehicle may store regenerative braking energy occurring during gliding (or coasting drive) or decelerating drive of the vehicle. Here, the coasting refers to a state in which a vehicle is being moved by inertia according to the current speed when the driver is pressing neither the accelerator pedal nor the brake pedal during the driving of the vehicle, whereas the decelerating drive refers to a state in which the vehicle is moving while being rapidly decelerated by the driver pressing the brake pedal during the driving of the vehicle” (par. 10-11). It is obvious that Kim considers both coasting and decelerating using the brake pedal to store regenerative braking energy.
Regarding argument C, Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti (US 20230182585 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230402659 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koti teaches a fuel cell electric vehicle (par. 25, vehicle with a fuel cell powertrain system) comprising:
at least one fuel cell configured to provide power for the fuel cell electric vehicle (Fig. 1, fuel cell system component 120),
at least one battery configured to provide power for the fuel cell electric vehicle (Fig. 1, high voltage battery system component 160),
a power strategy control system (Fig. 1, system controller 190) communicatively coupled with the at least one fuel cell and the at least one battery and configured to maximize a power availability for the fuel cell electric vehicle to fulfill a vehicle power demand (par. 34, "Referring to FIG. 1, in one embodiment, the system controller 190 may implement one or more methods, processes, strategies, and/or algorithms to determine, optimize, and/or improve a power split or a power allocation between the power sources comprised in the fuel cell powertrain system 100"),
wherein the power strategy control system is configured to:
determine a maximum fuel cell power from the at least one fuel cell and an optimized battery power from the at least one battery based, at least in part, on a battery discharge limit of the at least one battery (par. 6, "The method may include receiving an input into a processor of the fuel cell powertrain system, determining an output by the processor, communicating the output by the processor to a system controller, and determining a power split by the system controller. The power split may include implementing a power split between a first power associated with the first power source, and a second power associated with the second power source"), an accelerator pedal request (par. 11, "The input in the system may include accessory demand, traction capability, or driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system"), and drive conditions (par. 11, "The input in the system may include accessory demand, traction capability, or driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system"),
and control operation of the at least one fuel cell to provide the maximum fuel cell power and the at least one battery to provide the optimized battery power so that the power availability for the fuel cell electric vehicle is maximized by the maximum fuel cell power while the at least one battery is protected from damage via the optimized battery power (par. 6, "The method may include receiving an input into a processor of the fuel cell powertrain system, determining an output by the processor, communicating the output by the processor to a system controller, and determining a power split by the system controller...the input includes a life or health of at least one of the first power source or the second power source.").
While Koti does not explicitly teach an accelerator pedal request, Koti does teach a driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system. It would have been obvious to use the pedal to measure the load requested of the driver and is the method used by most vehicles to do so.
Koti fails to teach a motor configured to receive the power from the at least one fuel cell and the at least one battery and configured to provide power to the at least one battery to charge the at least one battery, and a variable regeneration control system in communication with the motor and configured to selectively adjust an amount of power provided to the at least one battery by the motor while the fuel cell electric vehicle is in a coasting mode during which an accelerator pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle is not pressed, the variable regeneration control system configured to change between at least three different modes, the variable regeneration control system in each of the at least three different modes being configured to direct the motor to provide a different amount of power to the at least one battery.
However, Kim teaches a motor (Fig. 1, motor 500) configured to receive the power from the at least one fuel cell (fuel cell 200) and the at least one battery (battery 100), and configured to provide power to the at least one battery to charge the at least one battery (par. 13-14 regenerative braking),
and a variable regeneration control system (Fig. 1, battery control system) in communication with the motor (see Fig. 1) and configured to selectively adjust an amount of power provided to the at least one battery by the motor (Fig. 9) while the fuel cell electric vehicle is in a coasting mode during which an accelerator pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle is not pressed (par. 17-18, method is for increasing efficiency during regenerative braking), the variable regeneration control system configured to change between at least three different modes, the variable regeneration control system in each of the at least three different modes being configured to direct the motor to provide a different amount of power to the at least one battery (Fig. 9; par. 134, " the controller 300 of the battery control system of a fuel cell vehicle according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may change the charge control factor of the battery 100 according to the first change rate of the SOC value of the battery 100 and change the discharge control factor of the battery 100 according to the third change rate of the SOC value of the battery 100").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Koti to incorporate the teachings of Kim in order to prevent the battery from being overcharged or overdischarged to prevent problems of reduced fuel efficiency and reduced acceleration performance caused by stopping of regenerative braking (par. 4).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Koti in view of Kim teaches the vehicle of claim 1. Koti further teaches the optimized battery power is limited by the power strategy control system so that a state of health (par. 6, "the input includes a life or health of at least one of the first power source or the second power source") and a state of charge (par. 7, "The input may be a power capability or state-of-charge of the battery system") of the at least one battery are conserved so as to protect the at least one battery from damage (par. 64, "The system controller 190 or the one or more fuel cell stack controllers 123, 125, 127 may consider this balance of life between power sources while determining, optimizing, implementing, and/or improving a power split or power allocation 250 strategy or algorithm that may be able to target maximum efficiency of the fuel cell powertrain system 100").
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Koti in view of Kim teaches the vehicle of claim 1. Koti further teaches a battery management system in communication with each of the at least one battery and the power strategy control system (Fig. 1, system controller 190), and wherein the battery management system determines the battery discharge limit in real-time based on inputs from the at least one battery (par. 62, "the inputs or the control elements 202 may be determined in real time"; par. 64, "the life and state-of-health (SOH) of each of the fuel cell system or fuel cell stack 122, 124, 126 and battery pack 162 may influence the real time power split or power allocation 250") and the battery management system communicates the battery discharge limit to the power strategy control system (par. 6, "determining an output by the processor, communicating the output by the processor to a system controller, and determining a power split by the system controller").
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti in view of Kim, and further in view of Chen (US 20220169150 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Koti in view of Kim teaches the vehicle of claim 3. Koti fails to explicitly teach a pedal sensor coupled with the accelerator pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle, and wherein the pedal sensor is in communication with the power strategy control system to provide accelerator pedal request inputs to the power strategy control system based on an acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle.
However, Chen teaches a pedal sensor coupled with an accelerator pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle, and wherein the pedal sensor is in communication with the power strategy control system to provide accelerator pedal request inputs to the power strategy control system based on an acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle (par. 10, "The current maximum possible power request may be determined as a function of an input of a power request, for example the state of engagement of an accelerator pedal").
While Koti does not explicitly teach a pedal sensor for determining an acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle, Koti does teach a driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Chen to use the pedal to measure the load requested of the driver and is the method used by most vehicles to do so.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti in view of Kim and Chen, and further in view of Michelotti (US 20250162465 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Chen teaches the vehicle of claim 4. Koti further teaches the drive conditions include road grade (par. 11, "The input in the system may include accessory demand, traction capability, or driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system")(par. 99, "In some embodiments, a real time vehicle mass estimator strategy may be utilized to determine if the vehicle with the fuel cell powertrain system 100 is operating close to curb weight (e.g., the weight of the vehicle with all standard equipment without payload) or is operating as a bobtail (e.g., a truck without the trailer) in real time"),
Koti fails to teach the drive conditions include weather and traffic.
Chen teaches the drive conditions include traffic (par. 10, “the current maximum possible power requests can be determined depending on the features of a travelled route and/or a current route and/or a route which is to be travelled. For this purpose, data from a navigation device and/or cloud-based data and/or data regarding the traffic situation may be used").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Chen to further incorporate the teachings of Chen in order to adequately divide the power request among the fuel cell and battery (par. 4).
Michelotti teaches the drive conditions include weather (abstract, cold weather).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Michelotti. Michelotti states, “In cold climates, fuel cell efficiency may decrease, potentially leading to increased reliance on the battery. The adaptive derating method can help manage this scenario by continuously monitoring the battery current error and implementing appropriate performance adjustments. This can help maintain adequate SOC even when the fuel cell is operating at reduced efficiency due to low temperatures” (par. 52).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Koti in view of Kim, Chen, and Michelotti teaches the vehicle of claim 5. Koti further teaches the power strategy control system is in communication with (par. 99, "the system controller 190 or the one or more fuel cell system or fuel cell stack controllers 123, 125, 127 of the fuel cell powertrain system 100 may additionally implement strategies or algorithms based on additional sensors/signals to determine operation of the fuel cell systems 122, 124, 126").
Koti fails to teach a global positioning system.
Chen teaches the power strategy control system is in communication with at least one of a global positioning system (par. 10, “the current maximum possible power requests can be determined depending on the features of a travelled route and/or a current route and/or a route which is to be travelled. For this purpose, data from a navigation device and/or cloud-based data and/or data regarding the traffic situation may be used").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim, Chen, and Michelotti to further incorporate the teachings of Chen in order to adequately divide the power request among the fuel cell and battery (par. 4).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti in view of Kim, and further in view of Yokoo (US 20220289037 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Koti teaches a method of maximizing a power availability for a fuel cell electric vehicle (par. 25, vehicle with a fuel cell powertrain system) to fulfill a vehicle power demand, the method comprising:
receiving a battery discharge limit (par. 34, "Referring to FIG. 1, in one embodiment, the system controller 190 may implement one or more methods, processes, strategies, and/or algorithms to determine, optimize, and/or improve a power split or a power allocation between the power sources comprised in the fuel cell powertrain system 100") from a battery management system based on at least one battery (Fig. 1, high voltage battery system component 160) of the fuel cell electric vehicle,
receiving an accelerator pedal request related to an acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle (par. 11, "The input in the system may include accessory demand, traction capability, or driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system"),
receiving drive conditions (par. 11, "The input in the system may include accessory demand, traction capability, or driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system"),
based on the battery discharge limit of the at least one battery, the accelerator pedal request, and the drive conditions, determining a maximum fuel cell power from at least one fuel cell and an optimized battery power from the at least one battery (par. 6, "The method may include receiving an input into a processor of the fuel cell powertrain system, determining an output by the processor, communicating the output by the processor to a system controller, and determining a power split by the system controller. The power split may include implementing a power split between a first power associated with the first power source, and a second power associated with the second power source"),
controlling operation of the at least one fuel cell to provide the maximum fuel cell power to a motor of the fuel cell electric vehicle so that the power availability for the fuel cell electric vehicle is maximized by the maximum fuel cell power (par. 6, "The method may include receiving an input into a processor of the fuel cell powertrain system, determining an output by the processor, communicating the output by the processor to a system controller, and determining a power split by the system controller. The power split may include implementing a power split between a first power associated with the first power source, and a second power associated with the second power source"),
controlling the at least one battery to provide the optimized battery power to the motor so that the at least one battery is protected from damage via the optimized battery power (par. 6, "The method may include receiving an input into a processor of the fuel cell powertrain system, determining an output by the processor, communicating the output by the processor to a system controller, and determining a power split by the system controller...the input includes a life or health of at least one of the first power source or the second power source.")
While Koti does not explicitly teach an accelerator pedal request, Koti does teach a driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system. It would have been obvious to use the pedal to measure the load requested of the driver and is the method used by most vehicles to do so.
Koti fails to teach rotating an adjustable column arranged in an interior of the fuel cell electric vehicle to cause the adjustable column to move to a first position, in response to the adjustable column moving to the first position, changing a variable regeneration control system to a first mode so that up to a first maximum power is provided to the at least one battery from the motor to charge the at least one battery, rotating the adjustable column to cause the adjustable column to move to a second position different than the first position, and in response to the adjustable column moving to the second position, changing the variable regeneration control system to a second mode different than the first mode so that up to a second maximum power is provided to the at least one battery from the motor to charge the at least one battery, the second maximum power being greater than the first maximum power.
However, Kim teaches second mode different than the first mode so that up to a second maximum power is provided to the at least one battery from the motor to charge the at least one battery, the second maximum power being greater than the first maximum power (Fig. 9; par. 134, " the controller 300 of the battery control system of a fuel cell vehicle according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may change the charge control factor of the battery 100 according to the first change rate of the SOC value of the battery 100 and change the discharge control factor of the battery 100 according to the third change rate of the SOC value of the battery 100").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Koti to incorporate the teachings of Kim in order to prevent the battery from being overcharged or overdischarged to prevent problems of reduced fuel efficiency and reduced acceleration performance caused by stopping of regenerative braking (par. 4).
Both Koti and Kim fail to teach rotating an adjustable column arranged in an interior of the fuel cell electric vehicle to cause the adjustable column to move to a first position, in response to the adjustable column moving to the first position, and rotating the adjustable column to cause the adjustable column to move to a second position different than the first position, and in response to the adjustable column moving to the second position.
However, this limitation simply describes a user interface in the form of a dial that can change the variable regeneration control settings. The use of a dial to change vehicle settings is already well-known in the art. Additionally, an operator controlling the regenerative braking settings is also well-known in the art.
Yokoo teaches rotating an adjustable column arranged in an interior of the fuel cell electric vehicle to cause the adjustable column to move to a first position, in response to the adjustable column moving to the first position, and rotating the adjustable column to cause the adjustable column to move to a second position different than the first position, and in response to the adjustable column moving to the second position (par. 24 and Fig. 2A-2C, “the user interface element(s) 44 can be one or more buttons, one or more dials, one or more levers, one or more knobs, one or more keys, one or more selectors, one or more actuators, any other suitable user interface element(s), and/or any combination of the foregoing”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Yokoo in order to give the operator more control over the electric vehicle, as this function is already well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Yokoo teaches the method of claim 15. Koti further teaches receiving a state of health (par. 6, "the input includes a life or health of at least one of the first power source or the second power source") and a state of charge (par. 7, "The input may be a power capability or state-of-charge of the battery system") of the at least one battery to determine the battery discharge limit (par. 64, "The system controller 190 or the one or more fuel cell stack controllers 123, 125, 127 may consider this balance of life between power sources while determining, optimizing, implementing, and/or improving a power split or power allocation 250 strategy or algorithm that may be able to target maximum efficiency of the fuel cell powertrain system 100").
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Yokoo, and further in view of Seol (US 20230054790 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Yokoo teaches the method of claim 15. Koti fails to explicitly teach the step of receiving an accelerator pedal request includes detecting voltage data related to the acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle via a sensor coupled with an accelerator pedal.
However, Seol teaches the step of receiving an accelerator pedal request includes detecting voltage data related to the acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle via a sensor coupled with an accelerator pedal (par. 39, "The stroke sensor 121 may output different voltages according to the depression stroke of the pedal 110. The stroke sensor 121 may be configured to have its output voltage increase as the pedal 110 is depressed toward the master cylinder 150. The control unit 400 may estimate the depression stroke of the pedal 110 or the position of the pedal 110 by using a voltage that relates to the position of the pedal 110”).
While Koti does not explicitly teach a pedal sensor for determining an acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle, Koti does teach a driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Yokoo to incorporate the teachings of Seol in order to measure the driver demand via the acceleration pedal. Using a voltage sensor to measure the driver’s acceleration request is well-known and can be found in many vehicles.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti in view of Kim, Yokoo, and Chen.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Yokoo teaches the vehicle of claim 15. Koti further teaches the drive conditions include road grade (par. 11, "The input in the system may include accessory demand, traction capability, or driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system"), trailer conditions (par. 99, "In some embodiments, a real time vehicle mass estimator strategy may be utilized to determine if the vehicle with the fuel cell powertrain system 100 is operating close to curb weight (e.g., the weight of the vehicle with all standard equipment without payload) or is operating as a bobtail (e.g., a truck without the trailer) in real time"),
Koti fails to teach the drive conditions include traffic.
Chen teaches the drive conditions include traffic (par. 10, “the current maximum possible power requests can be determined depending on the features of a travelled route and/or a current route and/or a route which is to be travelled. For this purpose, data from a navigation device and/or cloud-based data and/or data regarding the traffic situation may be used").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Yokoo to incorporate the teachings of Chen in order to adequately divide the power request among the fuel cell and battery (par. 4).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Koti in view of Kim, Yokoo, and Chen teaches the method of claim 18. Koti further teaches detecting the drive conditions via (par. 99, "the system controller 190 or the one or more fuel cell system or fuel cell stack controllers 123, 125, 127 of the fuel cell powertrain system 100 may additionally implement strategies or algorithms based on additional sensors/signals to determine operation of the fuel cell systems 122, 124, 126").
Koti fails to teach a global positioning system.
Chen teaches detecting the drive conditions via a global positioning system (par. 10, “the current maximum possible power requests can be determined depending on the features of a travelled route and/or a current route and/or a route which is to be travelled. For this purpose, data from a navigation device and/or cloud-based data and/or data regarding the traffic situation may be used").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim, Yokoo, and Chen to further incorporate the teachings of Chen in order to adequately divide the power request among the fuel cell and battery (par. 4).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti in view of Kim, and further in view of Hancock (US 20200385001 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Koti teaches a fuel cell electric vehicle (par. 25, vehicle with a fuel cell powertrain system) comprising:
at least one fuel cell configured to provide power for the fuel cell electric vehicle (Fig. 1, fuel cell system component 120),
at least one battery configured to provide power for the fuel cell electric vehicle (Fig. 1, high voltage battery system component 160),
and a power strategy control system (Fig. 1, system controller 190) communicatively coupled with the at least one fuel cell and the at least one battery and configured to maximize a power availability for the fuel cell electric vehicle to fulfill a vehicle power demand (par. 34, "Referring to FIG. 1, in one embodiment, the system controller 190 may implement one or more methods, processes, strategies, and/or algorithms to determine, optimize, and/or improve a power split or a power allocation between the power sources comprised in the fuel cell powertrain system 100"),
wherein the power strategy control system is configured to determine a maximum fuel cell power from the at least one fuel cell and an optimized battery power from the at least one battery based on a battery discharge limit of the at least one battery (par. 6, "The method may include receiving an input into a processor of the fuel cell powertrain system, determining an output by the processor, communicating the output by the processor to a system controller, and determining a power split by the system controller. The power split may include implementing a power split between a first power associated with the first power source, and a second power associated with the second power source"), an accelerator pedal request (par. 11, "The input in the system may include accessory demand, traction capability, or driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system"), and drive conditions (par. 11, "The input in the system may include accessory demand, traction capability, or driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system").
While Koti does not explicitly teach an accelerator pedal request, Koti does teach a driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system. It would have been obvious to use the pedal to measure the load requested of the driver and is the method used by most vehicles to do so.
Koti fails to teach a motor configured to receive the power from the at least one fuel cell and the at least one battery and configured to provide power to the at least one battery to charge the at least one battery, and a variable regeneration control system in communication with the motor and configured to selectively adjust an amount of power provided to the at least one battery by the motor while the fuel cell electric vehicle is in a coasting mode during which an accelerator pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle is not pressed, the variable regeneration control system configured to change between at least three different modes, the variable regeneration control system in each of the at least three different modes being configured to direct the motor to provide a different amount of power to the at least one battery.
However, Kim teaches a motor (Fig. 1, motor 500) configured to receive the power from the at least one fuel cell (fuel cell 200) and the at least one battery (battery 100), and configured to provide power to the at least one battery to charge the at least one battery (par. 13-14 regenerative braking),
and a variable regeneration control system (Fig. 1, battery control system) in communication with the motor (see Fig. 1) and configured to selectively adjust an amount of power provided to the at least one battery by the motor (Fig. 9) while the fuel cell electric vehicle is in a coasting mode during which an accelerator pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle is not pressed (par. 17-18, method is for increasing efficiency during regenerative braking), the variable regeneration control system configured to change between at least three different modes, the variable regeneration control system in each of the at least three different modes being configured to direct the motor to provide a different amount of power to the at least one battery (Fig. 9; par. 134, " the controller 300 of the battery control system of a fuel cell vehicle according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may change the charge control factor of the battery 100 according to the first change rate of the SOC value of the battery 100 and change the discharge control factor of the battery 100 according to the third change rate of the SOC value of the battery 100").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Koti to incorporate the teachings of Kim in order to prevent the battery from being overcharged or overdischarged to prevent problems of reduced fuel efficiency and reduced acceleration performance caused by stopping of regenerative braking (par. 4).
Both Koti and Kim fail to teach and a creep control system in communication with the motor and configured to dynamically adjust an amount of torque provided to the motor while the fuel cell electric vehicle is in a creep mode during which the accelerator pedal and a brake pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle are not pressed, the creep control system configured to determine a base torque value based on a speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle and a compensation torque value based, at least in part, on the speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle to determine a requested total torque, and the creep control system is configured to output the requested total torque so that the motor is provided with the requested total torque.
However, Hancock teaches and a creep control system (abstract, creep speed control system) in communication with the motor and configured to dynamically adjust an amount of torque provided to the motor while the fuel cell electric vehicle is in a creep mode (par. 33, "The vehicle 60 has a creep speed control system or module 22 which implements a creep function by controlling the torque requested at the electric motors 14, 16 in certain situations") during which the accelerator pedal and a brake pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle are not pressed (par. 2, "The creep function enables the driver to use only the brake pedal to control movement of the vehicle, i.e. depressing brake pedal to stop the vehicle and removing their foot from the brake pedal to allow creep movement of the vehicle in either a forwards or backwards direction"), the creep control system configured to determine a base torque value based on a speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle (Fig. 3, base torque applied before creep control activation based on creep speed target value 52) and a compensation torque value based, at least in part, on the speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle to determine a requested total torque (Fig. 3, compensation torque applied while creep control is active based on creep speed target value 52 in order to limit the speed), and the creep control system is configured to output the requested total torque so that the motor is provided with the requested total torque (par. 33, "The vehicle 60 has a creep speed control system or module 22 which implements a creep function by controlling the torque requested at the electric motors 14, 16 in certain situations").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim incorporate the teachings of Hancock in order to increase the convenience of using a creep function for the user (par. 2-4).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Hancock teaches the vehicle of claim 9. Koti further teaches the optimized battery power is limited by the power strategy control system so that a state of health (par. 6, "the input includes a life or health of at least one of the first power source or the second power source") and a state of charge (par. 7, "The input may be a power capability or state-of-charge of the battery system") of the at least one battery are conserved so as to protect the at least one battery from damage (par. 64, "The system controller 190 or the one or more fuel cell stack controllers 123, 125, 127 may consider this balance of life between power sources while determining, optimizing, implementing, and/or improving a power split or power allocation 250 strategy or algorithm that may be able to target maximum efficiency of the fuel cell powertrain system 100").
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Hancock teaches the vehicle of claim 9. Koti further teaches a battery management system in communication with each of the at least one battery and the power strategy control system (Fig. 1, system controller 190), and wherein the battery management system determines the battery discharge limit in real-time based on inputs from the at least one battery (par. 62, "the inputs or the control elements 202 may be determined in real time"; par. 64, "the life and state-of-health (SOH) of each of the fuel cell system or fuel cell stack 122, 124, 126 and battery pack 162 may influence the real time power split or power allocation 250") and the battery management system communicates the battery discharge limit to the power strategy control system (par. 6, "determining an output by the processor, communicating the output by the processor to a system controller, and determining a power split by the system controller").
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Hancock teaches the vehicle of claim 9. Koti and Kim both fail to teach the base torque value is based solely on the speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle, the base torque value increases at a predetermined rate as the speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle increases, and the base torque value is constant once a threshold speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle is reached.
However, Hancock teaches the base torque value is based solely on the speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle (Fig. 3, torque is based on creep speed target value 52), the base torque value increases at a predetermined rate as the speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle increases (par. 52, "With reference to FIG. 3b, whilst the vehicle 60 decelerates the requested motor torque 54 is negative, i.e. overrun torque. As the vehicle speed 30 decreases the requested torque 54 approaches zero. This coincides with the time at which the vehicle speed 30 equals the creep speed target value 52. The creep speed controller 40 activates when the vehicle speed equals the upper bound 52a. The creep speed controller 40 then outputs the speed control torque signal 54 to the 14, 16"—negative torque is greater when speed is greater), and the base torque value is constant once a threshold speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle is reached (Fig. 3, torque becomes constant when creep speed target value 52 is reached).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim incorporate the teachings of Hancock in order to increase the convenience of using a creep function for the user (par. 2-4).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti in view of Kim and Hancock, and further in view of Chen (US 20220169150 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Hancock teaches the vehicle of claim 11. Koti fails to explicitly teach a sensor coupled with the accelerator pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle, and wherein the sensor is in communication with the power strategy control system to provide accelerator pedal request inputs to the power strategy control system based on an acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle.
However, Chen teaches a sensor coupled with an accelerator pedal of the fuel cell electric vehicle, and wherein the sensor is in communication with the power strategy control system to provide accelerator pedal request inputs to the power strategy control system based on an acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle (par. 10, "The current maximum possible power request may be determined as a function of an input of a power request, for example the state of engagement of an accelerator pedal").
While Koti does not explicitly teach a pedal sensor for determining an acceleration level of the fuel cell electric vehicle, Koti does teach a driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Chen to use the pedal to measure the load requested of the driver and is the method used by most vehicles to do so.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Koti in view of Kim, Hancock, and Chen teaches the vehicle of claim 12. Koti further teaches the drive conditions include road grade(par. 11, "The input in the system may include accessory demand, traction capability, or driver demand on the fuel cell powertrain system").
Koti fails to teach the drive conditions include traffic.
Chen teaches the drive conditions include traffic (par. 10, “the current maximum possible power requests can be determined depending on the features of a travelled route and/or a current route and/or a route which is to be travelled. For this purpose, data from a navigation device and/or cloud-based data and/or data regarding the traffic situation may be used").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Chen to further incorporate the teachings of Chen in order to adequately divide the power request among the fuel cell and battery (par. 4).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Koti in view of Kim, Hancock, and Chen teaches the vehicle of claim 13. Koti further teaches the power strategy control system is in communication with (par. 99, "the system controller 190 or the one or more fuel cell system or fuel cell stack controllers 123, 125, 127 of the fuel cell powertrain system 100 may additionally implement strategies or algorithms based on additional sensors/signals to determine operation of the fuel cell systems 122, 124, 126").
Koti fails to teach a global positioning system.
Chen teaches the power strategy control system is in communication with a global positioning system (par. 10, “the current maximum possible power requests can be determined depending on the features of a travelled route and/or a current route and/or a route which is to be travelled. For this purpose, data from a navigation device and/or cloud-based data and/or data regarding the traffic situation may be used").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Chen to further incorporate the teachings of Chen in order to adequately divide the power request among the fuel cell and battery (par. 4).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koti in view of Kim and Hancock, and further in view of Han (US 20200171962 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Hancock teach the vehicle of claim 2. Koti, Kim, and Hancock all fail to teach the creep control system is configured to determine a correction torque value based, at least in part, on an actual speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle as compared to an expected speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle based on the requested torque value, and wherein the correction torque value is configured to correct an overspeed condition of the fuel cell electric vehicle.
However, Han teaches the creep control system is configured to determine a correction torque value based, at least in part, on an actual speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle as compared to an expected speed of the fuel cell electric vehicle based on the requested torque value, and wherein the correction torque value is configured to correct an overspeed condition of the fuel cell electric vehicle (par. 15, “The controller may update the determined creep torque when the difference value between the target speed and the current speed of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Koti in view of Kim and Hancock to incorporate the teachings of Han in order to “provide consistent deceleration feeling or acceleration feeling during creep driving” (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights