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 .
Reopening of Prosecution
The indicated allowability of claims 1 & 4 are withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Lavertu et al (US12194889 in view of Kerschl et al (US9566854). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavertu et al (US12194889) in view of US Patent Kerschl et al (US9566854).
A method for operating a commercial vehicle combination (col. 1 ll 8-10), the vehicle combination including a tractor and a trailer (fig. 1), the tractor (102) having a first electric machine (fig. 2), a first electric storage device (154) operatively connected to the first electric machine (fig. 2), and a fuel cell system (150) operatively connected to the first electric storage device (fig. 2), the fuel cell system being configured to provide electric energy with a generated power (through traction inverter 152), the trailer (160) having a second electric machine (“engine 302”) and a second electric storage device (“batteries 324”) operatively connected to the second electric machine (fig. 3), the method comprising:
determining operating parameters of at least one of the first electric machine, the second electric machine, the first electric storage device, and the second electric storage device (col. 16 ll 30-38, 55-61, 65-67 determines systems power outputs for engine and fuel cell; estimating the power demand for operating the train based on various different parameters such as charging battery, tractive effort to maintain speed etc.); and,
adapting the generated power of the fuel cell system as a function of at least one of the determined operating parameters (col 17 ln. 15-39 discloses once the power demands have been determined the system uses look up tables to determine optimal outputs specifically, ln. 35-39, “The high efficient point may correspond to a power output of the fuel cell that is between about 40%-60% of a maximum power output of the fuel cell. The power output of the fuel cell may be added to the power output of the engine.”).
Lavertu discloses a commercial vehicle combination of a rail vehicle (102) and additional car (108/160) in which the vehicle includes (see Figures 2 and 3) a first electric machine (122/124 generator electric traction motors C. 7 ln. 57-65) and a first electric storage device (battery 154 C. 7 ln. 66-67) and a fuel cell system (150 C. 3-150) and trailer 160 a second storage device (324) and a second electric machine (314/316/318.)
While Lavertu teaches the method with a mode of transportation as an exemplary train, it may not explicitly teach the vehicle mode of a tractor and a trailer.
Lavertu teaches the method with a mode of transportation as an exemplary train, it may not explicitly teach the vehicle mode of a tractor and a trailer.
Kerschl (fig 1) discloses a semi-tractor/trailer combination which comprises a tractor with a first energy storage (12) and a first electric machine (6) that can be used with a fuel cell (col 1 ln. 44-60) and a trailer that comprises a second electric machine (electric assembly 20 comprising an electric motor col 4 ln. 45-46) and a second energy storage (16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine Lavertu’s energy management system with the transportation mode (tractor/trailer) of Kerschl as one would have been motivated by the teachings of Lavertu (C. 3 ln. 43-56) which discloses that the energy management approach of Lavertu can be employed in a variety of engine and mobile platforms to achieve the improved performance of the system over a longer duration (C. 3 ln. 38-40).
Claim 4 Lavertu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the generated power is adapted in accordance with an operating strategy, wherein the operating strategy has a time characteristic (col. 3 ll 37-42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-20 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.
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658