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 .
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: i) applicant should change (in claims 1 and 11), “a fuel cell electric vehicle, FCEV” to a more standard1, “a fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV)”, and ii) in claim 9, line 2, “a start location of each road path sections” (reciting the plural of sections) should apparently read, “a start location of each road path section” (reciting a singular section, for grammatical correctness). Appropriate correction, or reasoned traversal, is suggested in the instance i) and is required in the instance ii).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
[The Claim Interpretation section is divided into two parts, I. and II., below:]
I. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such limitations include “program code means” in claim 13, interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “control unit” in claims 11 and 15 (see e.g., published paragraph [0021] for corresponding structure, with the examiner understanding that “processing circuitry” is not “sufficient structure, material, or acts” to perform the entireties of the claimed functions; see MPEP 2181).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
II. Regarding the perhaps non-standard language in the independent claims, “control[] the fuel cell to assume the power mode”, the examiner understands this claim limitation “assume” in light of the specification e.g., at published paragraph [0006] which indicates, “wherein the fuel cell is operable to assume a cruise mode in which the fuel cell generates electric power at a first power level, and a power mode in which the fuel cell generates electric power at a second power level, the second power level being higher than the first power level”.
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.
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 1 to 15 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.
In claim 1, line 20, and in claim 11, line 18, “a starting position” is indefinite and not reasonably certain2 because “a starting position” has already been recited earlier in the claim (e.g., at line 12 in claim 1 and at lines 11ff in claim 11), and so it is unclear whether the later-recited starting position (at line 20 in claim 1 or at line 18 in claim 11) is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the starting position recited earlier in the claim. In this respect, all later recitations of “the starting position” in the claim set (e.g., in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 11) are also indefinite because it is unclear whether they are referring back to the earlier-recited or later-recited “starting position” of the independent claim.
In claim 10, line 4, “an end position of the upcoming road path” is unclear, because “an end position” along the (upcoming) road path has already been recited earlier in the independent claim (e.g., at line 12 in claim 1), and so it is unclear whether the later-recited end position (in claim 10) is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the end position recited earlier in the independent claim. In this respect, “the end position” recited at claim 10, line 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether it is referring back to the earlier-recited or later-recited “end position”.
In claim 10, line 9, “a starting position of the upcoming road segment” is indefinite because “a starting position” has already been recited earlier in the independent claim (e.g., at line 12 in claim 1), and so it is unclear whether the later-recited starting position (in claim 10) is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the starting position recited earlier in the independent claim.
In claim 10, lines 9ff, “a road path section” is indefinite because “a plurality of road path sections” and “each road path section” have already been recited earlier in claim 7 from which claim 10 depends (e.g., at lines 3ff in claim 7), and so it is unclear whether the later-recited “road path section” (in claim 10) is the same as or one of, different from or not one of, permissively the same as or one of, permissively different from or not one of, necessarily the same as or one of, necessarily different from or not one of, etc. the each or plurality of “road path section[s]” recited in claim 7.
In claim 12, line 1, “A vehicle” comprising (by the wording of the claim, only) “a system according to claim 11” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification and in the claim context (e.g., what other elements, if any, does the system/apparatus need to have in order to be considered “a vehicle”, when the claim requires no other elements?)
In claim 12, line 1, “a system according to claim 11” is indefinite, e.g., because claim 11 recites an “electric power system” and an “energy storage system”, and it is unclear whether the “a system” is claim 12 is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. either one (which one?) of the systems recited in claim 11.
In claim 13, line 1, “computer program comprising program means for performing the method . . .” is fully indefinite.
In claim 14, lines 2ff, “the program product” apparently has no proper antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 15, line 1, the “control unit for controlling an auxiliary system” is unclear, with no reasonably certain metes and bounds for “auxiliary system” being provided in the specification or being discernible from the claim context.
In claim 15, lines 1ff, “a transportation vehicle” is indefinite in the claim context. For example, is this a vehicle that is different from the fuel cell electric vehicle of the independent claim? If yes, where is this made clear/reasonably certain in the description? If not, why are two different names being used for the same claim element, giving rise to an unclear double inclusion/recitation3 of the claim element in the claim by two different names?
Claim limitation “program code means” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear what the structure, material, or acts of any “program code means” is from the teachings of the specification, in order to determine their equivalents. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites (e.g., in shorthand format[4]) a computer program per se.5
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 to 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehring et al. (2024/0092186) in view of Tu et al. (2023/0271532).
Gehring et al. (‘186) reveals:
per claim 1, a computer implemented method of controlling an electric power system of a fuel cell electric vehicle [e.g., 2], FCEV, the electric power system being operatively controlled by a processing circuitry [e.g., 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, etc.] and comprises an energy storage system [e.g., 2.7, 2.8] and a fuel cell [e.g., 2.5, 2.6], wherein the fuel cell is operable to assume a cruise mode [e.g., as shown in FIG. 2a, where the (constant, non-increased) desired (or mean) power value of the fuel cell 2.6 is shown in kilowatts (kW) at the top] in which the fuel cell generates electric power at a first power level, and a power mode [e.g., the increased kW level shown by the horizontal line at the top in FIG. 2b and 2c (and 2d), between the starting position and end position of an enlarged route section, as annotated by the examiner in the footnote below[6]] in which the fuel cell generates electric power at a second power level, the second power level being higher than the first power level [e.g., the fuel cell power is increased for the route section in FIGS. 2b and 2c (and 2d) relative to the constant, non-increased desired power value (kW) in FIG. 2a], the method comprising:
determining, by the processing circuitry, a road topology for an upcoming road path to be operated by the FCEV [e.g., paragraphs [0029], [0030], etc.; e.g., “Using the logistics planning data and the vehicle data, the driving prediction module 3.3 of the driving strategy module 3 then calculates the energy demand and other vehicle states along the planned route with the planned vehicle. . . . Here, the influences of traffic, if necessary, of the driver, the topography, the weather, and the traffic infrastructure are also taken into account accordingly.”];
determining, by the processing circuitry, an electric energy level of the energy storage system [e.g., FIG. 2a and paragraphs [0033], etc., “the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 is shown in percentage at the bottom”, with the kW (e.g., planned output) of the fuel cell also being shown at the top];
determining, by the processing circuitry, an electric power level generatable by the fuel cell along the road path from a starting position to an end position [e.g., the starting position and the end position of the route section, indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b, where an increased power value for the fuel cell 2.6 is utilized e.g., in FIGS. 2b to 2d[7]] when the fuel cell assumes the cruise mode [e.g., as shown in FIG. 2a, for the route section indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b];
determining, by the processing circuitry, an electric energy consumption of the electric power system based on the road topology for operating the FCEV along the upcoming road path [e.g., claim 6, “wherein the consumption values are forecast based on a modeling of the motor vehicle with a calculation of drive and brake torques on the route”; see also paragraphs [0029], [0030], [0032], claim 1, etc. for the energy demand along the route];
determining, by the processing circuitry, an electric energy capacity of the electric power system along the road path based on the electric energy level of the energy storage system and the electric power level generatable by the fuel cell when assuming the cruise mode [e.g., the energy capacity reflected by both the planned/desired power value (kW) of the fuel cell in FIG. 2a and the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 when the fuel cell is providing the planned/desired output; e.g., paragraph [0033], “it is checked whether limit values of the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 are exceeded with such a power trajectory of the fuel cell 2.6 or not”]; and
controlling, by the processing circuitry, the fuel cell to assume the power mode [e.g., in FIGS. 2b and 2c, the mode where the power value of the fuel cell 2.6 is increased (e.g., above the gray area in FIG. 2b) for the route section (or time) as indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b] when arriving at a starting position [e.g., the starting position of the route section indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b] and for the entire road path from the starting position to the end position of the upcoming road path when the electric energy consumption of the electric power system exceeds the electric energy capacity of the electric power system [e.g., paragraph [0033], “it is checked whether limit values of the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 are exceeded with such a power trajectory of the fuel cell 2.6 or not”; see also paragraph [0035], “In this case, the charge level of the backup battery 2.8 falls below the minimum level, which can be seen accordingly in FIGS. 2a and 2b. To counteract this shortfall, the gray area under the lower limit value, i.e., an amount of energy, is identified, for example by integrating the area between the curve and the limit value. This value then corresponds to an amount of energy that must additionally be provided by the fuel cell 2.6. In the illustration of FIG. 2b), this is brought about by increasing the power of the fuel cell 2.6, namely by the amount of energy previously identified as being below the limit of the backup battery 2.8. To keep the change in power of the fuel cell on the one hand as low as possible and to remain in operation of the fuel cell 2.6 for as long as possible at a constant power, the time or route section during which the power is increased accordingly is enlarged, e.g., doubled, compared to the time or route section during which power had fallen below the lower limit value, as can be seen from the illustration in FIG. 2b). To ultimately comply with the mean total power of the fuel cell 2.6 and thus the total energy generated by the fuel cell 2.6 over the route, the curve of the fuel cell power is then reduced accordingly, once again in relation to time or route, such that on average the same mean power as in FIG. 2a is again achieved.”];
It may be alleged that Gehring et al. (‘186) does not expressly reveal the processing circuitry or the road topology, although the examiner believes these limitations to be fairly revealed or rendered obvious by the teachings of Gehring et al. (‘186) alone, even without further teachings, when the teachings of Gehring are interpreted by one having ordinary skill in this art. Moreover, regarding the dependent claims, it may be alleged that Gehring et al. (‘186) does not expressly reveal a traction motor, although this too would have been obvious/implicit in an electric drive system of the motor vehicle in Gehring et al. (‘186), even without further teachings.
However, in the context/field of an improved FCEV energy management method and system, Tu et al. (‘532) teaches at paragraph [0038] that the energy control unit 205 is implemented as an “MCU”, understood by those skilled in the art and an abbreviation for a “microcontroller”, and that the front road information (from which the front required power mode is predicted) includes the grades, slopes, and/or gradient of the road in front of the vehicle (paragraphs [0049] to [0053]). Moreover, Tu et al. (532) teaches at paragraph [0078] that the vehicle includes a motor 206, and “the motor 206 drives a transmission module 207 of the vehicle, and the transmission module 207 drives wheels 208 to run”, and that braking energy is recovered as much as possible on downslopes (e.g., paragraphs [0064], [0067], etc.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Gehring et al. (‘186) method for operating the electric drive system so that the control and management modules (e.gg., 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, etc.) would have been implemented as conventional MCUs, as taught by Tu et al. (‘532), so that the vehicle with the electric drive system in Gehring et al. (‘186) would have been implemented with a motor (206) that generated/recovered power/energy during braking as taught by Tu et al. (‘532), and so that the “topography” that was taken into account when calculating the energy demand and other vehicle states along the planned route at paragraphs [0029] and [0030] would have included road grades, slopes, and/or gradients, as taught by Tu et al. (‘532), in order that conventional hardware that would execute a program and include a motor, as taught by Tu et al. (‘532), would have been used to implement the control and management modules and the electric drive in Gehring et al. (‘186) and in order that the calculation of the energy demand based on “topography” would have been based on the road grades, slopes, and/or gradients as affected the vehicle travel and energy consumption/demand, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Gehring et al. (‘186) method for operating the electric drive system would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a computer implemented method of controlling an electric power system of a fuel cell electric vehicle [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), 2], FCEV, the electric power system being operatively controlled by a processing circuitry [e.g., the MCU at paragraph [0038] in Tu et al. (‘532); and in Gehring et al. (‘186), 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, etc.] and comprises an energy storage system [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), 2.7, 2.8] and a fuel cell [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), 2.5, 2.6], wherein the fuel cell is operable to assume a cruise mode [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), as shown in FIG. 2a, where the (constant, non-increased) desired (or mean) power value of the fuel cell 2.6 is shown in kilowatts (kW) at the top] in which the fuel cell generates electric power at a first power level, and a power mode [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), the increased kW level shown by the horizontal line at the top in FIG. 2b and 2c (and 2d), between the starting position and end position of an enlarged route section, as annotated by the examiner in the footnote below[8]] in which the fuel cell generates electric power at a second power level, the second power level being higher than the first power level [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), the fuel cell power is increased for the route section in FIGS. 2b and 2c (and 2d) relative to the constant, non-increased desired power value (kW) in FIG. 2a], the method comprising:
determining, by the processing circuitry, a road topology for an upcoming road path to be operated by the FCEV [e.g., in Tu et al. (‘532), the road grades, slopes, and/or gradients as taught at paragraphs [0049] to [0053], etc., including downhill sections, uphill sections, etc. of the front road; and in Gehring et al. (‘186), paragraphs [0028] to [0032], etc., e.g., “Using the logistics planning data and the vehicle data, the driving prediction module 3.3 of the driving strategy module 3 then calculates the energy demand and other vehicle states along the planned route with the planned vehicle. . . . Here, the influences of traffic, if necessary, of the driver, the topography, the weather, and the traffic infrastructure are also taken into account accordingly.”];
determining, by the processing circuitry, an electric energy level of the energy storage system [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), FIG. 2a and paragraphs [0033], etc., “the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 is shown in percentage at the bottom”, with the kW (e.g., planned output) of the fuel cell also being shown at the top];
determining, by the processing circuitry, an electric power level generatable by the fuel cell along the road path from a starting position to an end position [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), the starting position and the end position of the route section, indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b, where an increased power value for the fuel cell 2.6 is utilized e.g., in FIGS. 2b to 2d[9]] when the fuel cell assumes the cruise mode [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), as shown in FIG. 2a, for the route section indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b, with the desired (or mean) power value for the fuel cell];
determining, by the processing circuitry, an electric energy consumption of the electric power system based on the road topology for operating the FCEV along the upcoming road path [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), claim 6, “wherein the consumption values are forecast based on a modeling of the motor vehicle with a calculation of drive and brake torques on the route”; see also paragraphs [0029], [0030], [0032], claim 1, etc. for the energy demand along the route];
determining, by the processing circuitry, an electric energy capacity of the electric power system along the road path based on the electric energy level of the energy storage system and the electric power level generatable by the fuel cell when assuming the cruise mode [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), the energy capacity reflected by both the planned/desired power value (kW) of the fuel cell in FIG. 2a and the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 when the fuel cell is providing the planned/desired output; e.g., paragraph [0033], “it is checked whether limit values of the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 are exceeded with such a power trajectory of the fuel cell 2.6 or not”]; and
controlling, by the processing circuitry, the fuel cell to assume the power mode [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), in FIGS. 2b and 2c, the mode where the power value of the fuel cell 2.6 is increased (e.g., above the gray area in FIG. 2b) for the route section (or time) as indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b] when arriving at a starting position [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), the starting position of the route section indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b] and for the entire road path from the starting position to the end position of the upcoming road path when the electric energy consumption of the electric power system exceeds the electric energy capacity of the electric power system [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), paragraph [0033], “it is checked whether limit values of the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 are exceeded with such a power trajectory of the fuel cell 2.6 or not”; see also paragraph [0035], “In this case, the charge level of the backup battery 2.8 falls below the minimum level, which can be seen accordingly in FIGS. 2a and 2b. To counteract this shortfall, the gray area under the lower limit value, i.e., an amount of energy, is identified, for example by integrating the area between the curve and the limit value. This value then corresponds to an amount of energy that must additionally be provided by the fuel cell 2.6. In the illustration of FIG. 2b), this is brought about by increasing the power of the fuel cell 2.6, namely by the amount of energy previously identified as being below the limit of the backup battery 2.8. To keep the change in power of the fuel cell on the one hand as low as possible and to remain in operation of the fuel cell 2.6 for as long as possible at a constant power, the time or route section during which the power is increased accordingly is enlarged, e.g., doubled, compared to the time or route section during which power had fallen below the lower limit value, as can be seen from the illustration in FIG. 2b). To ultimately comply with the mean total power of the fuel cell 2.6 and thus the total energy generated by the fuel cell 2.6 over the route, the curve of the fuel cell power is then reduced accordingly, once again in relation to time or route, such that on average the same mean power as in FIG. 2a is again achieved.”];
per claim 2, depending from claim 1, wherein the electric energy level of the energy storage system is determined for the starting position of the upcoming road path [e.g., as shown by the state of charge (SOC) percentages (“%”) in FIGS. 2a to 2d in Gehring et al. (‘186), which are determined for all points of the forecast route];
per claim 3, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
estimating, by the processing circuitry, a variation of a state of charge level of the energy storage system along the upcoming road path when the fuel cell assumes the cruise mode [e.g., as shown in FIG. 2a of Gehring et al. (‘186)], and
controlling, by the processing circuit, the fuel cell to assume the power mode when arriving at the starting position [e.g., as shown in FIG. 2b of Gehring et al. (‘186)] when the state of charge level of the energy storage system is determined to fall below a predetermined threshold limit along the upcoming road path [e.g., as shown by the portion of the SOC curve that falls below the limit of the lower state of charge in FIG. 2a of Gehring et al. (‘186) that corresponds to the gray area (under the lower limit value) of the SOC curve in FIG. 2b of Gehring et al. (‘186)] by operating the fuel cell to assume the cruise mode;
per claim 4, depending from claim 1, wherein the FCEV comprises an electric traction motor [e.g., 206 in Tu et al. (‘532); and the electric drive in Gehring et al. (‘186)] configured to receive electric power from the electric power system during propulsion, and to feed electric power to the energy storage system generated by the electric traction motor during braking [e.g., in the recovery of braking energy, obviously to the vehicle battery, while maintaining the battery SOC as taught by Tu et al. (‘532) at paragraphs [0064], [0067], etc.; and when braking torques (which are converted into a recuperation power at the electric drive unit) are generated on the route as taught e.g., at claim 6, paragraph [0032], etc. by Gehring et al. (‘186), which obviously causes the battery SOC to rise e.g., in FIGS. 2a to 2d], wherein the electric energy capacity of the electric power system is further based on electric power generated by the electric traction motor along the upcoming road path [e.g., in accordance with the braking torques on the route in Gehring et al. (‘186) obviously used for recuperation (paragraph [0017], [0032], etc.) and causing increases in SOC as shown in FIGS. 2a to 2d; and so that the braking energy is recovered as much as possible (e.g., on a long downslope, by keeping the battery SOC value near the allowable minimum SOC value in advance of the downslope), as taught by Tu et al. (‘532) at paragraphs [0064], [0067], etc.];
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry controls the fuel cell to assume the power mode along the entire upcoming road path from the starting position to the end position when the electric energy consumption of the electric power system is determined to exceed the electric energy capacity of the electric power system [e.g., when the electric energy consumption in FIG. 2a of Gehring et l. (‘186) causes the charge level (SOC) of the backup battery 2.8 to fall below the minimum level (thereby exceeding the capacity of the system of FIG. 1 to operate e.g., without falling below that minimum level; or falling below or exceeding the limit values shown in FIGS. 2a to 2d), which can be seen in FIGS. 2a and 2b];
per claim 6, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
controlling, by the processing circuitry, the fuel cell to assume the cruise mode when the electric energy consumption of the electric power system falls below the electric energy capacity of the electric power system [e.g., when the system of FIG. 1 in Gehring et al. (‘186) will not fall below or exceed the limit values on the battery charge state (SOC) and the mean (desired) fuel cell power of FIG. 2a can obviously be utilized over the entire route (paragraph [0033])];
per claim 7, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
dividing, by the processing circuitry, the upcoming road path into a plurality of road path sections [e.g., the “route sections” at paragraphs [0028], [0032], etc. of Gehring et al. (‘186)], each road path section being associated with an individual road topology [e.g., obviously downslopes and upslopes as taught by Tu et al. (‘532), e.g., at paragraphs [0010] to [0012], etc.];
wherein the electric energy consumption of the electric power system is determined for each road path section [e.g., as taught by Gehring et al. (‘186) at paragraphs [0028] to [0032], etc.; and as taught by Tu et al. (‘532), as described above];
per claim 8, depending from claim 7, wherein the electric energy capacity of the electric power system is determined for each road path section [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 2a to 2d of Gehring et al. (‘186) which show the desired (or mean) power value of the fuel cell and the battery charge state (SOC) for each time or route section along the route];
per claim 9, depending from claim 8, wherein the electric energy level of the energy storage system is determined at a start location of each road path sections [e.g., as shown by the power value of the fuel cell and/or the charge level (SOC) of the backup battery, in FIGS. 2a to 2d of Gehring et al. (‘186), for each point in the time or route sections along the route];
per claim 10, depending from claim 8, further comprising:
setting, by the processing circuitry, a desired state of charge level of the energy storage system at an end position of the upcoming road path [e.g., the desired charge level(s) (SOC) being between the upper and lower limit values, for all points/sections along the route in Gehring et al. (‘186); and the adjusted SOC value for the/each upslope section, the/each downslope section, etc. in Tu et al. (‘532)];
determining, by the processing circuitry, a desired electric energy capacity of the electric power system for each road path sections to arrive at the end position with the desired state of charge level of the energy storage system [e.g., as described in conjunction with FIGS. 2b to 2d in Gehring et al. (‘186) in order that the (SOC/charge level) limit values of the backup battery 2.8 are not violated (exceeded or fallen below), as a desired capacity of the battery/system]; and
controlling, by the processing circuitry, the fuel cell to assume the power mode when arriving at a starting position of the upcoming road path when the determined electric energy capacity for a road path section is below the desired electric energy capacity for that road path section [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 2b to 2d of Gehring et al. (‘186), when there will be the shortfall (gray area) in the backup battery (minimum) charge level/SOC and the power value of the fuel cell is accordingly increased (as shown by the gray area in FIG. 2b)];
per claim 11, an electric power system electrically connectable to an electric traction motor of a fuel cell electric vehicle, FCEV, the electric power system comprising an energy storage system and a fuel cell, wherein the fuel cell is operable to assume a cruise mode in which the fuel cell generates electric power at a first power level, and a power mode in which the fuel cell generates electric power at a second power level, the second power level being higher than the first power level, wherein the electric power system further comprises a control unit comprising processing circuitry operable to control the energy storage system and the fuel cell [e.g., all as described with reference to claim 1, above], the processing circuitry being configured to:
determine a road topology for an upcoming road path to be operated by the FCEV [e.g., in Tu et al. (‘532), the road grades, slopes, and/or gradients as taught at paragraphs [0049] to [0053], etc., including downhill sections, uphill sections, etc. of the front road; and in Gehring et al. (‘186), paragraphs [0028] to [0032], etc., e.g., “Using the logistics planning data and the vehicle data, the driving prediction module 3.3 of the driving strategy module 3 then calculates the energy demand and other vehicle states along the planned route with the planned vehicle. . . . Here, the influences of traffic, if necessary, of the driver, the topography, the weather, and the traffic infrastructure are also taken into account accordingly.”];
determine an electric energy level of the energy storage system [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), FIG. 2a and paragraphs [0033], etc., “the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 is shown in percentage at the bottom”, with the kW (e.g., planned output) of the fuel cell also being shown at the top];
determine an electric power level generatable by the fuel cell along the road path from a starting position to an end position when the fuel cell assumes the cruise mode [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), as shown in FIG. 2a and in (as annotations S and E) footnotes above, for the route section indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b, with the desired (or mean) power value for the fuel cell];
determine an electric energy consumption of the electric power system based on the road topology for operating the FCEV along the upcoming road path [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), claim 6, “wherein the consumption values are forecast based on a modeling of the motor vehicle with a calculation of drive and brake torques on the route”; see also paragraphs [0029], [0030], [0032], claim 1, etc. for the energy demand along the route];
determine an electric energy capacity of the electric power system along the road path based on the electric energy level of the energy storage system and the electric power level generatable by the fuel cell when assuming the cruise mode [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), the energy capacity reflected by both the planned/desired power value (kW) of the fuel cell in FIG. 2a and the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 when the fuel cell is providing the planned/desired output; e.g., paragraph [0033], “it is checked whether limit values of the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 are exceeded with such a power trajectory of the fuel cell 2.6 or not”]; and
control the fuel cell to assume the power mode [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), in FIGS. 2b and 2c, the mode where the power value of the fuel cell 2.6 is increased (e.g., above the gray area in FIG. 2b) for the route section (or time) as indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b] when arriving at a starting position [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), the starting position of the route section indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b] and for the entire road path from the starting position to the end position of the upcoming road path when the electric energy consumption of the electric power system exceeds the electric energy capacity of the electric power system [e.g., in Gehring et al. (‘186), paragraph [0033], “it is checked whether limit values of the state of charge of the backup battery 2.8 are exceeded with such a power trajectory of the fuel cell 2.6 or not”; see also paragraph [0035], “In this case, the charge level of the backup battery 2.8 falls below the minimum level, which can be seen accordingly in FIGS. 2a and 2b. To counteract this shortfall, the gray area under the lower limit value, i.e., an amount of energy, is identified, for example by integrating the area between the curve and the limit value. This value then corresponds to an amount of energy that must additionally be provided by the fuel cell 2.6. In the illustration of FIG. 2b), this is brought about by increasing the power of the fuel cell 2.6, namely by the amount of energy previously identified as being below the limit of the backup battery 2.8. To keep the change in power of the fuel cell on the one hand as low as possible and to remain in operation of the fuel cell 2.6 for as long as possible at a constant power, the time or route section during which the power is increased accordingly is enlarged, e.g., doubled, compared to the time or route section during which power had fallen below the lower limit value, as can be seen from the illustration in FIG. 2b). To ultimately comply with the mean total power of the fuel cell 2.6 and thus the total energy generated by the fuel cell 2.6 over the route, the curve of the fuel cell power is then reduced accordingly, once again in relation to time or route, such that on average the same mean power as in FIG. 2a is again achieved.”];
per claim 12, a vehicle [e.g., the motor vehicle 2 in Gehring et al. (‘186)] comprising a system according to claim 11 [e.g., as described with reference to claim 11, above];
per claim 13, a computer program [e.g., as taught by the program installed in the energy control module 205 implemented as an MCU, as taught by Tu et al. (‘532) at paragraph [0038] which would have obviously implemented the control and management modules in Gehring et al. (‘186)] comprising program code means for performing the method of claim 1 when the program is run on a computer [e.g., the MCU of Tu et al. (‘532)];
per claim 14, a non-transitory computer readable medium [e.g., the obvious memory used in conjunction with the MCU taught at paragraph [0038] of Tu et al. (‘532) for storing (e.g., obviously in ROM or storage) and executing (e.g., obviously in RAM) the program taught by Tu et al. (‘532)] carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the method of claim 1 [e.g., as described with reference to claim 1, above] when the program product is run on a computer;
per claim 15, a control unit [e.g., 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, etc. in Gehring et al. (‘186)] for controlling an auxiliary system [e.g., the electric drive system and its associated components shown in FIG. 1] of Gehring et al. (‘186)] of a transportation vehicle [e.g., 2 in Gehring et al. (‘186)], the control unit being configured to perform the method according to claim 1 [e.g., as described with reference to claim 1, above];
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, Lavertu et al. (2023/0202347) reveals in FIG. 7 a control scheme for a fuel cell vehicle wherein the fuel cell is normally operated at its highest efficiency setting (704), and the power output from the fuel cell is increased (at 714) when the demand power is not being met (712, NO).
Zhu et al. (CN, 112959922) is similar (e.g., see steps S202 to S205 in FIG. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 See published paragraph [0001] of the specification. See also https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/apa_abbreviations.html (“When abbreviating a term, use the full term the first time you use it, followed immediately by the abbreviation in parentheses.”)
2 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.”)
3 MPEP 2173.05(o).
4 See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1147 (BPAI 1992).
5 See MPEP 2106.03, I.:
“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations; . . .”
6 The examiner below/on the next page annotates FIGS. 2a to 2d in Gehring et al. (‘186) to show the implicit or obvious example starting position (labeled “S” by the examiner) and end position (labeled “E” by the examiner) e.g., of the “route section” (paragraph [0035], indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b) of the increased power output of the fuel cell 2.6, in FIGS. 2b and 2c (and 2d):
PNG
media_image1.png
747
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
7 Example starting and end positions are annotated onto FIG. 2 in Gehring et al. (‘186) by the examiner in footnotes above.
8 The examiner below/on the next page annotates FIGS. 2a to 2d in Gehring et al. (‘186) to show the implicit or obvious example starting position (labeled “S” by the examiner) and end position (labeled “E” by the examiner) e.g., of the “route section” (paragraph [0035], indicated by the double-ended arrow in FIG. 2b) of the increased power output of the fuel cell 2.6, in FIGS. 2b and 2c (and 2d):
PNG
media_image1.png
747
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
9 Example starting and end positions are annotated onto FIG. 2 in Gehring et al. (‘186) by the examiner in footnotes above.
Prosecution Insights