DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s RCE with amendment/remarks filed 07/09/2026. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 11-15 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 filed 07/09/2026, with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant discloses that the primary reference Oakes US20070138006A1 describes a completely different purpose (generating hydrogen gas on a motor vehicle itself) than that of the current invention (enabling prolonged endurance braking). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Oakes is pertinent to the problem of handling energy that is generated by the motors during braking, which includes performing electrolysis. The Oakes reference discloses what to do with surplus energy that the vehicle produces during braking. Para. 0032 of Oakes discloses “the conversion of excess kinetic energy into electricity helps conserve overall power usage for the vehicle, as well as assist in the braking process.” The rejection does not rely on Oakes for prolonging the time interval of consistent braking by the electric motors. The rejection relies on the secondary reference Banker US20130296102A1 which discloses consuming excess electrical energy produced via an electrical machine providing driveline braking so that regenerative braking may be extended (Para. 0005, Banker). The rejection relies on the combination of the prior art on record. The same rational applies to the “causal relationship” argument of page 9 of the remarks. The recited “causal” relationship is supplied by the combination of the prior art on record. Therefore, the rejection remains.
The applicant further discloses that “an impact of these differences may be that a time interval of consistent braking is prolonged reliably. Even if hydrogen generation could reduce heating if it happened to take place during electric motor braking, any consequential accidental prolonging of the time interval during which consistent braking can be provided is not reliably provided”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “consistent” modifies the braking whose interval is prolonged, but it imposes no requirement on the certainty/reliability of the prolonging itself. An advantage not recited in the claim cannot distinguish the claim over the prior art. Furthermore, the argument (page 9 last paragraph, Remarks) and the next argument (Page 10, first paragraph, Remarks) is directed at the art considered individually. The rejection relies on the secondary teachings of Banker US20130296102A which includes a device that is automatically activated to consume charge from an electric machine while that machine is providing drive-line braking whereby the braking is extended and the teachings of Schultz et al. US20140062371A1, which discloses detecting a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motors during braking, wherein the need pertains to heating of the electric motors.. Therefore, the rejection remains.
The same rational applies to the arguments of Page 10 of the remarks, wherein the applicant relies on the art teachings individually without considering the combination of the art as relied in the rejection. The applicant discloses that Schultz and Banker do not recite fuel cell electrolysis for their purposes. However, this limitation is provided by the primary reference Oakes. The purpose of Banker is for “consuming excess electrical energy produced via an electrical machine providing driveline braking so that regenerative braking may be extended” while the purpose of Schultz is for “detecting a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motor(s), wherein the need pertains to heating of the electric motors.” Therefore, the rejection remains.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-12 filed 07/09/2026, with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant discloses that none of Oakes, Schultz, and Banker prompt a combination of their teachings, and the result of the combination (if attempted) would not fall under the claimed invention. The applicant discloses that the result might be a vehicle that “directs kinetic energy captured from the vehicle regenerative braking wheel system into an on-board hydrogen generator to disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen when hydrogen gas is needed (Oakes), dissipate heat in resistors or adjusts the speed of a traction motor blow when the temperature of a traction motor needs to be regulated (Schultz), and activate a windscreen heater to consume charge from an electric machine providing braking when it is desired to extend regenerative braking (Banker). The examiner respectfully disagrees since the argument recites embodiments of the references rather than what they teach.
The references are relied upon for their corresponding specific limitations. For example, the primary reference Oakes is relied upon for a vehicle that comprises electric motors, a fuel cell arrangement configured to drive the electric motors, for the detection of a condition during braking, the transfer of the motor’s energy to the electrolysis load responsive to that detection, and the triggering of the electrolysis. The secondary Schultz supplies that the detected need pertains to motor heating and to activate a device when a threshold temperature is exceeded (i.e. a need to disperse heating energy of the electric motor). The third reference Banker teaches that consuming the electrical output of a machine while that machine provides driveline braking prolongs the braking. Since Oakes performs detecting, causing, and triggering, which consumes the electrical output of the braking motors, it would be reasonable to operate Oakes’ transfer of the motors’ braking output to the electrolysis load (i.e. consuming the excess electrical output) for the purpose that Banker identifies which is prolonging the interval over which the motors sustain braking. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 combination is reasonable, and the rejection remains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 12 are amended to include “responsive to the detection, causing, by the processing circuity, transfer.” The specifications only discloses that the triggering of electrolysis occurs responsive to the detection (See Para. 0006, 0043, and 0066 of the specifications filed 11/27/2024). The specifications do not disclose that the transfer step is caused in response to the detection. Since the disclosed detection is a detection of energy transfer toward the fuel cell arrangement (Para. 0043, step 150), then the transfer step precedes and is what causes the detection (i.e. it is detecting that energy is being transferred). Para. 0059 discloses that the controller is configured to cause the energy transfer from the motors to the fuel cell arrangement responsive to the braking, which is a different condition from the recited detection. The specifications do not convey possession of causing the transfer responsive to the detection. The transfer step must precede the detection step because the transfer is what is being detected before performing electrolysis. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Independent claims 1 and 12 were amended on 04/20/2026 to recite a newly added limitation “detecting, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motor(s) during braking, wherein the need pertains to heating of the electric motor(s)”. Claims 1 and 12 as originally filed recited no detecting step. The specification’s only disclosure of detection is detection of energy transfer toward the fuel cell arrangement. See Para. 0043 (specifications filed 11/27/2024), “Step 150 may comprise detecting energy transfer towards the fuel cell arrangement, thereby indirectly detecting a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motor(s) during braking and triggering the electrolysis responsive to the detection.” The detected parameter that is recited throughout the specifications is detecting of energy transfer toward the fuel cell arrangement. The specification’s own characterization of this detection as indirect confirms that the disclosed detection and the recited need are not the same thing. The detection is energy transfer to the fuel cell arrangement, and the need to disperse is inferred rather than detected. It appears that the detecting step needs to be performed after the transferring step. Furthermore, the specifications are silent with detecting any condition pertaining to heating of the electric motors. The specifications (Para. 0018) describe the reduced heating of the electric motors as a technical benefit since energy is transferred away from them (i.e. a natural consequence of transferring energy away). The specifications do not recite any detection or determination of detecting motor temperature. Additionally, the specifications do not recite any detecting of a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motor(s) during braking, wherein the need pertains to heating of the electric motor(s). The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 12, and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes et al. US20070138006A1 (henceforth Oakes) in view of Schultz et al. US20140062371A1 (henceforth Schultz) and further in view of Banker et al. US20130296102A1 (henceforth Banker).
Regarding claim 1,
Oakes discloses:
A method for enabling prolonged endurance braking for a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises one or more electric motor(s). (See at least Para. 0031, “The electric current may then be used to drive one or more electric drive motors on the vehicle.” The vehicle comprises electric drive motors.)
and a fuel cell arrangement configured to drive the electric motor(s), (See at least Para. 0031, “ the propulsion system 16 includes a fuel cell that consumes hydrogen gas and generates an electric current. The electric current may then be used to drive one or more electric drive motors on the vehicle. ” The fuel cell arrangement in the vehicle is configured to drive the electric motors.)
the method comprising, during braking by the electric motor(s): detecting, by processing circuity, a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motors during braking, (See at least Para. 0036, “In another example, a regenerative braking system may be provided which includes a braking generator 72. The braking generator 72 is able to convert excess kinetic energy in the vehicle into electricity, for example, when the vehicle controller 65 detects that the vehicle is braking or coasting.” A need to disperse energy generated by the electric motors during braking is detected.)
and responsive to the detection, causing, by the processing circuit, transfer, from the electric motor(s) via a transfer network to the fuel cell arrangement, of electric energy or power generated by the electric motor(s) during the braking; (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0030, “that such electricity may be controlled and directed into an on-board low voltage direct photoelectrochemical hydrogen generator to disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen" and Para. 0036, “The braking generator 72 is able to convert excess kinetic energy in the vehicle into electricity, for example, when the vehicle controller 65 detects that the vehicle is braking or coasting.” Electric energy that is generated by the electric motors during the braking is transferred from the electric motors to the fuel cell arrangement.)
Triggering, by the processing circuitry, the fuel cell arrangement to dispatch the transferred electric energy or power by performing electrolysis driven by the transferred electrical energy or power, (See at least Para. 0030, “The high peak electrical output generating methods such as braking, are used to generate electricity to be stored in electricity storage including batteries, capacitors, or spinning fly wheel, so that such electricity may be controlled and directed into an on-board low voltage direct photoelectrochemical hydrogen generator to disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen. These onboard vehicle kinetic or renewable energy sources provide electrical current in a suitable configuration to disassociate or split water into hydrogen and oxygen in a photoelectrochemical hydrogen generator.” The fuel cell arrangement is triggered to dispatch the transferred energy by performing electrolysis.)
Additionally, see Fig. 1, wherein the excess energy 27 (from braking) is captured and transferred to the on-board electrical generator 23 to then perform electrolysis.)
Oakes does not specifically state, detecting, by the processing circuit, a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motor(s), wherein the need pertains to heating of the electric motor(s).
However, Schultz teaches:
detecting, by the processing circuit, a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motor(s), wherein the need pertains to heating of the electric motor(s).
(See at least Para. 0024, “If the determined temperature of the traction motor exceeds a threshold temperature value (e.g., 30.degree. C.), the blower may be activated.” The processing circuit of a computer system (see at least Para. 0019-0020 “controller 12 includes a computer control system) detects a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motor such that it can be dispersed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oakes to incorporate the teachings of Schultz to include detecting, by the processing circuit, a need to disperse energy generated by the electric motor(s), wherein the need pertains to heating of the electric motor(s) in order to prevent overheating, and would also reduce “degradation to the motor” (Para. 0002, Shultz). Furthermore, the energy that is dispersed in Oakes does not specifically state that it includes heat, and it would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art that transferred energy from the electric motors is heat. This would further create a more robust system for motor thermal protection. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Oakes and Schultz. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Oakes as modified by Schultz does not specifically state “prolonging a time interval of consistent braking by the electric motor(s).”
However, Banker teaches:
prolonging a time interval of consistent braking by the electric motor(s) (See at least Para. 0005, “By automatically activating a device to consume charge from an electric machine while the electric machine is providing driveline braking, it may be possible to extend regenerative braking” and Abstract “The electrical load may be a windscreen heater or other device.” A time interval to provide consistent braking by the electric motors is prolonged.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oakes (as modified by Schultz) to incorporate the teachings of Banker to include “prolonging a time interval of consistent braking by the electric motor(s) in order to “improve drivability and fuel economy of a vehicle.” (Para. 0002). This would create a more robust system for vehicles that uses electric motors for braking. Furthermore, in Oakes (as modified by Schultz), the recited detecting, causing, and triggering steps consumes the electrical output (i.e. via electrolysis) that the motors produce while braking, while Banker teaches that consuming the electrical output of a machine while that machine provides drive-line braking prolongs the braking. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to operate that transfer for the purpose Banker discloses (i.e. extending the interval of consistent braking by the electric motors).
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Oakes, Schultz and Banker. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
Oakes discloses:
wherein performing the electrolysis comprises converting water to oxygen and hydrogen. (See at least Para. 0030, “These onboard vehicle kinetic or renewable energy sources provide electrical current in a suitable configuration to disassociate or split water into hydrogen and oxygen in a photoelectrochemical hydrogen generator.” Electrolysis is performed by converting water into hydrogen and oxygen.)
Regarding claim 5,
Oakes discloses:
further comprising storing the oxygen and/or the hydrogen in corresponding tank(s).
(See at least Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, wherein the hydrogen and oxygen are stored in corresponding tanks.)
Regarding claim 6,
Oakes discloses:
further comprising using the stored oxygen and/or hydrogen for default operation of the fuel cell arrangement. (See at least Para. 0034, “The main hydrogen tank 52 is the primary source of hydrogen for a fuel cell”. The stored hydrogen is used for default operation of the fuel cell arrangement.)
Regarding claims 12 and 13,
All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The system taught/disclosed in claims 12 and 13 can clearly perform the method of claim 1. Therefore claims 12 and 13 are rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rationale.
Regarding claim 15,
Oakes further discloses:
A vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 12. (See at least Fig. 1, which comprises a vehicle with the computer system of claim 12.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes, Schultz, and Banker further in view of Owens et al. US20210047987A1 (henceforth Owens)
Regarding claim 3,
Oakes, Schultz and Banker discloses the limitations recited in claims 1 and 2 above.
Oakes does not specifically state comprising supplying the water from an on-board water tank. However, Owens teaches:
further comprising supplying the water from an on-board water tank.
(See at least Para. 0051, “may be configured to pump water from the tank to the reservoir 105 when: (i) the tank receives a predetermined amount of water; (ii) when the amount of water in the reservoir reaches a predetermined level (and therefore, the system requires additional water); or (iii) the demand for hydrogen by the engine of vehicle is such that the water within the reservoir 105 is continuously diminishing as a result of use of the system”. An on-board water tank supplies water to the reservoir 105.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oakes to incorporate the teachings of Owens to include “supplying the water from an on-board water tank” in order to replenish the system when it requires additional water (see Para. 0051, Owens). Since the water is continuously diminishing (i.e. Para. 0051, Owens), having an on-board tank of water would create a more robust hydrogen powered vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Oakes and Owens. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes, Schultz, and Banker further in view of Martin et al. US20180219267A1 (henceforth Martin).
Regarding claim 4,
Oakes, Schultz, and Banker discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 2 as recited above. Oakes does not specifically state comprising using water vapor from default operation of the fuel cell arrangement to supply the water.
However, Martin teaches:
comprising using water vapor from default operation of the fuel cell arrangement to supply the water. (See at least Para. 0007, “The water source may also be from the byproduct of the fuel cell operation” and Para. 0009, “the water source may be water vapor in the exhaust gases discharged from the hydrogen powered internal combustion engine”. Since steam is a byproduct of hydrogen fuel cell operation, the water source includes water vapor from the default operation of the fuel cell arrangement.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oakes to incorporate the teachings of Martin to include “comprising using water vapor from default operation of the fuel cell arrangement to supply the water” in order to reuse the water that is provided to the fuel cell arrangement, such that excess water can be reused. This would create a more robust vehicle that includes an electrolysis device on-board. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Oakes and Martin. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes, Schultz, and Banker further in view of Dolan et al. US20130118446A1 (henceforth Dolan).
Regarding claim 7,
Oakes, Schultz, and Banker discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 5 above.
Oakes further discloses:
further comprising using the stored oxygen (See at least Para. 0047, “ In a similar manner, the oxygen may be exhausted as waste or may be collected or used.” The excess stored oxygen can be used.)
Oakes does not specifically state “using the oxygen to drive hydraulics of the vehicle”.
However, Dolan teaches:
using the oxygen to drive hydraulics of the vehicle
(See at least Para. 0120, “oxygen powered hydraulic impulse engine or apparatus 10”, wherein oxygen is used to drive hydraulics of the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oakes to incorporate the teachings of Dolan to include “using the oxygen to drive hydraulics of the vehicle” in order to reuse the excess oxygen (Para. 0047, Oakes), such that it is not directly wasted. This would create a more robust hydrogen powered vehicle robust system by reusing oxygen such that it is not wasted. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Oakes and Dolan. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes, Schultz, and Banker further in view of Jang et al. US20160036080A1 (henceforth Jang)
Regarding claim 8,
Oakes, Schultz, and Banker discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Oakes further discloses:
during braking by the electric motor(s): transferring, from the electric motor(s) to an energy storing system of the vehicle, electric energy or power generated by the electric motor(s) during the braking, (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0030, “that such electricity may be controlled and directed into an on-board low voltage direct photoelectrochemical hydrogen generator to disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen." Electric energy that is generated by the electric motors during the braking is transferred from the electric motors to the fuel cell arrangement.)
Oakes does not specifically state wherein the transferring, from the electric motor(s) to the fuel cell arrangement, of electric energy or power generated by the electric motor(s) during the braking is applied for generated electric energy or power that the energy storing system is unable to receive for storage.
However, Jang teaches:
wherein the transferring, from the electric motor(s) to the fuel cell arrangement, of electric energy or power generated by the electric motor(s) during the braking is applied for generated electric energy or power that the energy storing system is unable to receive for storage.
(See at least Para. 0028, “ when the high voltage battery 50 is required to be charged, the regenerative braking energy 30 may be stored in the high voltage battery 50, and when the high voltage battery is not required to be charged, the regenerative braking energy 30 may be stored in the electrolytic cell unit 20 and supply hydrogen and oxygen to the stack unit 10.”When the high voltage battery is not required to be charged, the regenerative braking energy is stored in the electrolytic cell unit to supply hydrogen and oxygen to the stack unit (i.e. the energy generated during the braking is applied for generated electric energy that the storing system is unable to receive for storage).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oakes to incorporate the teachings of Jang to include wherein the transferring, from the electric motor(s) to the fuel cell arrangement, of electric energy or power generated by the electric motor(s) during the braking is applied for generated electric energy or power that the energy storing system is unable to receive for storage” such that the “energy generated at this time may be used to electrolyze water and the energy may be stored in the form of hydrogen and oxygen. In addition, the stored hydrogen may be connected to the fuel supply line to enhance fuel efficiency of the system, and the stored oxygen may be connected to an air supply line to increase an oxygen rate to enhance system efficiency” (Para. 0031, Jang). This would create a more robust hydrogen vehicle, such that energy that isn’t able to be stored can be used for the purpose of electrolysis. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Oakes and Jang. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes, Schultz, and Banker further in view of Murata et al. US20210199451A1 (henceforth Murata).
Regarding claim 11,
Oakes, Schultz, and Banker discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Oakes does not specifically state a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the method of claim 9 to be performed.
However, Murata teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the method of claim 9 to be performed.
(See at least Para. 0069 “for example, this disclosure is feasible in aspects such as a movement plan producing method for a hydrogen filling vehicle, a computer program for realizing the method, and a non-transitory storage medium storing the computer program, for example.” A computer program product can perform the method of claim 1. )
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oakes to incorporate the teachings of Murata to include “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the method of claim 9 to be performed” such that a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium can perform the method of claim 9, which would create a more robust system for executing the method on the vehicle, and further add another structure for performing the method. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Oakes and Murata. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes, Schultz, and Banker further in view of Owens US20210047987A1 and Jang US20160036080A1.
Regarding claim 14,
Oakes, Schultz, and Banker discloses the limitations as recited in claim 13 above.
Oakes further discloses:
further comprising one or more of: the electric motor(s); (See Para. 0031, “driven using electric motors”.)
the fuel cell arrangement; (See at least Fig. 4.)
respective tank(s) for storing oxygen and/or hydrogen produced by the electrolysis; (See at least Fig. 4.)
and an energy storing system, wherein the transfer network is further configured to transfer, from the electric motor(s) to the energy storing system of the vehicle, electric energy or power generated by the electric motor(s) during the braking, (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0030, “that such electricity may be controlled and directed into an on-board low voltage direct photoelectrochemical hydrogen generator to disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen." Electric energy that is generated by the electric motors during the braking is transferred from the electric motors to the fuel cell arrangement.)
Oakes does not specifically state comprising supplying the water from an on-board water tank for supplying water to be converted to oxygen and hydrogen by the electrolysis. However, Owens teaches:
further comprising supplying the water from an on-board water tank for supplying water to be converted to oxygen and hydrogen by the electrolysis.
(See at least Para. 0051, “may be configured to pump water from the tank to the reservoir 105 when: (i) the tank receives a predetermined amount of water; (ii) when the amount of water in the reservoir reaches a predetermined level (and therefore, the system requires additional water); or (iii) the demand for hydrogen by the engine of vehicle is such that the water within the reservoir 105 is continuously diminishing as a result of use of the system”. An on-board water tank supplies water to the reservoir 105.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oakes to incorporate the teachings of Owens to include “supplying the water from an on-board water tank for supplying water to be converted to oxygen and hydrogen by the electrolysis” in order to replenish the system when it requires additional water (see Para. 0051, Owens). Since the water is continuously diminishing (i.e. Para. 0051, Owens), having an on-board tank of water would create a more robust hydrogen powered vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Oakes and Owens. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Oakes does not specifically state transfer, from the electric motor(s) to the fuel cell arrangement, only electric energy or power generated by the electric motor(s) during the braking that the energy storing system is unable to receive for storage.
However, Jang teaches:
transfer, from the electric motor(s) to the fuel cell arrangement, only electric energy or power generated by the electric motor(s) during the braking that the energy storing system is unable to receive for storage
(See at least Para. 0028, “when the high voltage battery 50 is required to be charged, the regenerative braking energy 30 may be stored in the high voltage battery 50, and when the high voltage battery is not required to be charged, the regenerative braking energy 30 may be stored in the electrolytic cell unit 20 and supply hydrogen and oxygen to the stack unit 10.”When the high voltage battery is not required to be charged, the regenerative braking energy is stored in the electrolytic cell unit to supply hydrogen and oxygen to the stack unit (i.e. the energy generated during the braking is applied for generated electric energy that the storing system is unable to receive for storage).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oakes to incorporate the teachings of Jang to include “transfer, from the electric motor(s) to the fuel cell arrangement, only electric energy or power generated by the electric motor(s) during the braking that the energy storing system is unable to receive for storage” such that the “energy generated at this time may be used to electrolyze water and the energy may be stored in the form of hydrogen and oxygen. In addition, the stored hydrogen may be connected to the fuel supply line to enhance fuel efficiency of the system, and the stored oxygen may be connected to an air supply line to increase an oxygen rate to enhance system efficiency” (Para. 0031, Jang). This would create a more robust hydrogen vehicle, such that energy that isn’t able to be stored can be used for the purpose of electrolysis. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Oakes and Jang. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights