DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19-21, and 23 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 2: “the second filter” lacks antecedent basis in the claims, it appears this claim should depend from claim 2.
Claim 8, line 3: “the second filter” lacks antecedent basis in the claims, it appears this claim should depend from claim 2.
Claim 14, lines 1-2: “the thermal load” lacks antecedent basis in the claims, it appears this claim should depend from claim 2.
Claim 14, line 2: “each vehicle of the more than one vehicle passing the first filter” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claims 2 and 8 introduce plural vehicles passing the first filter.
Claim 15, lines 1-2: “each vehicle of the more than one vehicle passing the first filter” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claims 2 and 8 introduce plural vehicles passing the first filter.
Claim 15, line 2: “the cooling capabilities for cooling the fuel cell assembly” lack antecedent basis in the claims, it appears this claim should depend from claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend. Claim 20 is directed to a vehicle in communication with a controller of claim 19, and claim 21 is directed to a fleet of vehicles being controlled by a controller of claim 19. These claims do not require performing the method of claim 1, from which claim 19 depends, nor do they encompass the controller of claim 19. Claims 20 and 21 cover a vehicle or a fleet of vehicles, but the claimed subject matter does not encompass the controller of claim 19 nor the method of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as Figs. 1, 2B, 4, 7A, 7B, and 8 are a series of indistinct blank boxes devoid of labels. Such labels would facilitate an understanding of the invention without undue searching of the specification. The present drawings do not immediately convey any information and should be amended so that one looking at the drawings may quickly determine what elements they are looking at.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 17, 19-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0235488) in view of Koti (US Publication No. 2022/0393483).
Beth teaches:
Re claim 1. A method of operating a fleet of vehicles comprising a plurality of […] vehicles, the method comprising:
for each vehicle of the plurality of […] vehicles, determining a vehicle […] requirement for a mission to be performed using the fleet of vehicles, the mission comprising a planned route (abstract: “The fleet manager selects one or more candidate vehicles for the mission based on a correlation of at least one vehicle capability to a capability requirement determined from the mission request.”; paragraph [0015]: “perform mission planning for one or more vehicles of the fleet, including evaluation of a desired mission, determination of a mission plan, segmentation of the mission plan if needed, selection of one or more vehicles suitable for executing the mission plan, and assignment of various tasks and routes associated with the mission plan to one or more appropriate vehicles in order to allow execution of the desired mission.”; mission parameters 510, Fig. 5);
for each vehicle of the plurality of […] vehicles, determining a required power output […] of the vehicle, for performance of the mission (paragraph [0046]: “In the process of selecting vehicles for various tasks of a mission, it may be important to determine, based on a number of factors, the capabilities of a specific vehicle/robot to complete the tasks. Onboard parameters for vehicle proficiency and enthusiasm may include such parameters as … power requirements”);
applying a first filter by determining, using the required power output determined for each vehicle of the plurality of […] vehicles, whether at least one vehicle of the plurality of […] vehicles passes the first filter by meeting the vehicle power requirement (paragraphs [0042-0046]; evaluate proposed mission, transmit back decision/ + enthusiasm is acceptance of mission 530, Fig. 5); and
responsive to determination that one vehicle of the plurality of fuel cell vehicles passes the first filter, initiating an activation of the one vehicle passing the first filter to perform the mission (perform mission 560, Fig. 5).
While Beth teaches selecting a vehicle for a mission based on a correlation of at least one vehicle capability to a capability requirement for the mission, Beth fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) a plurality of fuel cell vehicles, and for each vehicle of the plurality of fuel cell vehicles, determining a required power output from a fuel cell assembly and an energy storage system, ESS, of the vehicle, for performance of the mission.
Koti teaches, at paragraph [0281], determining the power needs of a vehicle and the power output of a fuel cell and one or more power sources based on distance and conditions under which the vehicle must travel on a route. This allows for vehicles to reduce their emissions, while maintaining quick refueling due to their use of fuel cells, and also ensures vehicles have enough power for the routes and conditions they plan to traverse on a mission.
In view of Koti’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Beth, (re claim 1) a plurality of fuel cell vehicles, and for each vehicle of the plurality of fuel cell vehicles, determining a required power output from a fuel cell assembly and an energy storage system, ESS, of the vehicle, for performance of the mission, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Beth teaches selecting a vehicle for a mission based on a correlation of at least one vehicle capability to a capability requirement for the mission, and Koti teaches determining the power needs of a vehicle and the power output of a fuel cell and one or more power sources based on distance and conditions under which the vehicle must travel on a route. This allows for vehicles to reduce their emissions, while maintaining quick refueling due to their use of fuel cells, and also ensures vehicles have enough power for the routes and conditions they plan to traverse on a mission.
Beth further teaches:
Re claim 6. Further comprising, responsive to determination that no vehicles of the plurality of fuel cell vehicles pass the first filter (540, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0043]: “If no vehicles have accepted the mission, then an updated mission may be sent.”),
generating a first indication recommending that an original value of a parameter associated with the planned route of the mission be changed to a modified value (540, Fig. 5; and paragraph [0043]: “if a scheduled complete date associated with the mission is determined to be a reason why no vehicles accepted the mission, then the mission schedule can be modified and rebroadcast.”); and
initiating an activation of a selected vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to perform the mission, wherein the selected vehicle is determined to be able to perform the mission with the modified value of the parameter for the planned route (perform mission 560, Fig. 5).
Re claim 17. A computer system for operating a fleet of vehicles comprising a plurality of […] vehicles, the computer system comprising processing circuitry (paragraph [0003]: “The fleet manager may be a digitally controlled system, such as a computer configured for planning and executing missions”) configured to:
for each vehicle of the plurality of […] vehicles, determine a vehicle power requirement for a mission to be performed using the fleet of vehicles, the mission comprising a planned route (abstract: “The fleet manager selects one or more candidate vehicles for the mission based on a correlation of at least one vehicle capability to a capability requirement determined from the mission request.”; paragraph [0015]: “perform mission planning for one or more vehicles of the fleet, including evaluation of a desired mission, determination of a mission plan, segmentation of the mission plan if needed, selection of one or more vehicles suitable for executing the mission plan, and assignment of various tasks and routes associated with the mission plan to one or more appropriate vehicles in order to allow execution of the desired mission.”; mission parameters 510, Fig. 5);
for each vehicle of the plurality of […] vehicles, determine a required power output from […] the vehicle, for performance of the mission (paragraph [0046]: “In the process of selecting vehicles for various tasks of a mission, it may be important to determine, based on a number of factors, the capabilities of a specific vehicle/robot to complete the tasks. Onboard parameters for vehicle proficiency and enthusiasm may include such parameters as … power requirements”);
apply a first filter by determining, using the required power output determined for each vehicle of the plurality of […] vehicles, whether at least one vehicle of the plurality of […] vehicles passes the first filter by meeting the vehicle power requirement (paragraphs [0042-0046]; evaluate proposed mission, transmit back decision/ + enthusiasm is acceptance of mission 530, Fig. 5); and
responsive to determination that one vehicle of the plurality of fuel cell vehicles passes the first filter, initiate an activation of the one vehicle passing the first filter to perform the mission (perform mission 560, Fig. 5).
While Beth teaches selecting a vehicle for a mission based on a correlation of at least one vehicle capability to a capability requirement for the mission, Beth fails to specifically teach: (re claim 17) a plurality of fuel cell vehicles, and for each vehicle of the plurality of fuel cell vehicles, determining a required power output from a fuel cell assembly and an energy storage system, ESS, of the vehicle, for performance of the mission.
Koti teaches, at paragraph [0281], determining the power needs of a vehicle and the power output of a fuel cell and one or more power sources based on distance and conditions under which the vehicle must travel on a route. This allows for vehicles to reduce their emissions, while maintaining quick refueling due to their use of fuel cells, and also ensures vehicles have enough power for the routes and conditions they plan to traverse on a mission.
In view of Koti’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Beth, (re claim 17) a plurality of fuel cell vehicles, and for each vehicle of the plurality of fuel cell vehicles, determining a required power output from a fuel cell assembly and an energy storage system, ESS, of the vehicle, for performance of the mission, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Beth teaches selecting a vehicle for a mission based on a correlation of at least one vehicle capability to a capability requirement for the mission, and Koti teaches determining the power needs of a vehicle and the power output of a fuel cell and one or more power sources based on distance and conditions under which the vehicle must travel on a route. This allows for vehicles to reduce their emissions, while maintaining quick refueling due to their use of fuel cells, and also ensures vehicles have enough power for the routes and conditions they plan to traverse on a mission.
Beth further teaches:
Re claim 19. A controller for controlling a fleet of vehicles comprising a plurality of fuel cell vehicles, the controller being configured to perform the method of claim 1 (paragraph [0003]: “The fleet manager may be a digitally controlled system, such as a computer configured for planning and executing missions”; and Fig. 5).
Re claim 20. A vehicle from a plurality of vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, the vehicle being in communication with a controller of claim 19 (vehicle(s), Fig. 5).
Beth fails to specifically teach: (re claim 21) A fleet of vehicles comprising a plurality of fuel cell vehicles each comprising a fuel cell assembly, an energy storage system, and a control unit, the fleet of vehicles being controlled by a controller of claim 19.
Koti teaches, at 310 and 320, Fig. 3, fuel cells, battery cells, and processors in fleet vehicles. This allows for a fleet of vehicles with reduced emissions as compared to internal combustion powered vehicles.
In view of Koti’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the fleet of vehicles as taught by Beth, (re claim 21) A fleet of vehicles comprising a plurality of fuel cell vehicles each comprising a fuel cell assembly, an energy storage system, and a control unit, the fleet of vehicles being controlled by a controller of claim 19, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Koti teaches fuel cells, battery cells, and processors in fleet vehicles. This allows for a fleet of vehicles with reduced emissions as compared to internal combustion powered vehicles.
Beth further teaches:
Re claim 23. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 1 (paragraph [0003]: “The fleet manager may be a digitally controlled system, such as a computer configured for planning and executing missions”).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0235488) as modified by Koti (US Publication No. 2022/0393483) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsusue et al. (US Patent No. 10,647,212).
The teachings of Beth have been discussed above. Beth fails to specifically teach: (re claim 4) wherein applying the first filter includes using a maximum power request during the mission from the fuel cell assembly of each vehicle of the plurality of fuel cell vehicles.
Beth teaches, at the abstract, selecting a vehicle for a mission based on a correlation of at least one vehicle capability to a capability requirement for a mission along a route.
Matsusue teaches, at S11a, Fig. 10; and claim 1, calculating a required maximum power Pmax for a known route to be traveled by a fuel cell powered vehicle. This ensures that a vehicle has sufficient power for traveling a known route.
In view of Matsusue’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Beth, (re claim 4) wherein applying the first filter includes using a maximum power request during the mission from the fuel cell assembly of each vehicle of the plurality of fuel cell vehicles, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Beth teaches selecting a vehicle for a mission based on a correlation of at least one vehicle capability to a capability requirement for a mission along a route; and Matsusue teaches calculating a required maximum power Pmax for a known route to be traveled by a fuel cell powered vehicle. This ensures that a selected vehicle has sufficient power for traveling a known route.
Beth fails to specifically teach: (re claim 16) wherein the vehicle power requirement for the mission is determined in dependence on any one or more out of vehicle characteristics, traffic information, terrain information, topography information, a weight of the vehicle, a payload of the vehicle, and speed limits along the planned route.
Matsusue teaches, at S3-S7, Fig. 10, using the grade and average speed along a route to calculate a power requirement associated with that route. This provides greater accuracy when predicting the power requirements for a route, as steeper slopes and higher speed require more power to traverse.
In view of Matsusue’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Beth, (re claim 16) wherein the vehicle power requirement for the mission is determined in dependence on any one or more out of vehicle characteristics, traffic information, terrain information, topography information, a weight of the vehicle, a payload of the vehicle, and speed limits along the planned route, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Matsusue teaches using the grade and average speed along a route to calculate a power requirement associated with that route. This provides greater accuracy when predicting the power requirements for a route, as steeper slopes and higher speed require more power to traverse.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0235488) as modified by Koti (US Publication No. 2022/0393483) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohara et al. (US Publication No. 2013/0304274).
The teachings of Beth have been discussed above. Beth fails to specifically teach: (re claim 14) wherein the thermal load, for the fuel cell assembly of each vehicle of the more than one vehicle passing the first filter, is determined in dependence on a state of health, SoH, of the fuel cell assembly of each vehicle of the more than one vehicle passing the first filter.
Ohara teaches, at paragraph [0302], predicting a heat load demand of a fuel cell based on a temporal catalyst deterioration. This allows for a more accurate prediction of a heat load of a fuel cell as the catalyst deteriorates over the fuel cell’s lifespan.
In view of Ohara’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Beth, (re claim 14) wherein the thermal load, for the fuel cell assembly of each vehicle of the more than one vehicle passing the first filter, is determined in dependence on a state of health, SoH, of the fuel cell assembly of each vehicle of the more than one vehicle passing the first filter, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ohara teaches predicting a heat load demand of a fuel cell based on a temporal catalyst deterioration. This allows for a more accurate prediction of a heat load of a fuel cell as the catalyst deteriorates over the fuel cell’s lifespan.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beth et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0235488) as modified by Koti (US Publication No. 2022/0393483) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nada (US Publication No. 2019/0006689).
The teachings of Beth have been discussed above. Beth fails to specifically teach: (re claim 15) wherein, for each vehicle of the more than one vehicle passing the first filter, the cooling capabilities for cooling the fuel cell assembly of the vehicle are determined in dependence on one or more out of a vehicle ambient temperature, a predicted vehicle speed during the planned route, and a predicted performance of a vehicle cooling equipment during the planned route.
Nada teaches, at paragraph [0011], estimating a cooling capacity for cooling a fuel cell based on an ambient temperature and a moving speed of a vehicle hosting the fuel cell. This allows for more accurate predictions of a fuel cell’s cooling capacity, and therefore the fuel cell’s power generation.
In view of Nada’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Beth, (re claim 15) wherein, for each vehicle of the more than one vehicle passing the first filter, the cooling capabilities for cooling the fuel cell assembly of the vehicle are determined in dependence on one or more out of a vehicle ambient temperature, a predicted vehicle speed during the planned route, and a predicted performance of a vehicle cooling equipment during the planned route, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Nada teaches, at paragraph [0011], estimating a cooling capacity for cooling a fuel cell based on an ambient temperature and a moving speed of a vehicle hosting the fuel cell. This allows for more accurate predictions of a fuel cell’s cooling capacity, and therefore the fuel cell’s power generation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-12 are 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 SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656