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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 have been fully considered by the examiner.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is not falling under any of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter). Specifically, the claimed “computer program product” of claim 10 under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) thus not having a physical or tangible form (MPEP § 2106.03). See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims does not cover subject matter that have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of the statutory categories. Thus, the claims do not fall within a statutory category and failed the first criterion for eligibility. Correction is requested to remedy this deficiency (e.g. by providing the software on a “non-transitory computer readable medium”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oakes et al. US20070138006A1 (henceforth Oakes).
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): transferring, from the electric motor(s) to the fuel cell arrangement, 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.)
and dispatching the transferred electric energy or power by causing the fuel cell arrangement to perform electrolysis driven by the transferred electric 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.” Electrolysis is performed (i.e. splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen) via the transferred electric energy that is generated by the electric motors during braking.)
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 claim 9,
Oakes discloses:
wherein the method is controlled by processing circuitry of a computer system.
(See at least Para. 0066, “a vehicle control processor”.)
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 rationale.
Regarding claim 15,
Oakes 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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes in view of Owens et al. US20210047987A1 (henceforth Owens)
Regarding claim 3,
Oakes discloses the limitations as 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 in view of Martin et al. US20180219267A1 (henceforth Martin).
Regarding claim 4,
Oakes 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, then 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 in view of Dolan et al. US20130118446A1 (henceforth Dolan).
Regarding claim 7,
Oakes 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 in view of Jang et al. US20160036080A1 (henceforth Jang)
Regarding claim 8,
Oakes 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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes in view of Murata et al. US20210199451A1 (henceforth Murata).
Regarding claim 10,
Oakes discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 9 as recited above. Oakes does not specifically state a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the method of claim 9.
However, Murata teaches:
A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the method of claim 9. (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 9.)
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 computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the method of claim 9” such that a code can perform the method of claim 9, which would create a more robust system for executing the method on the vehicle. 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.
Regarding claim 11,
Oakes discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 9 as recited 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 9.)
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 in view of Owens US20210047987A1 and Jang US20160036080A1.
Regarding claim 14,
Oakes 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Owens US20120073522A1 discloses “A hydrogen generation system for producing hydrogen and injecting the hydrogen as a fuel supplement into the air intake of internal combustion engines. Hydrogen and oxygen is produced with a fuel cell at low temperatures and pressure from water in a supply tank. The hydrogen is directed to the air intake of the engine while the oxygen is vented to the atmosphere. The device is powered by the vehicle battery. The system utilizes an engine sensor that permits power to the system only when the engine is in operation.” (See abstract)
Wang US20220402354A1 discloses A hybrid plug-in battery and hydrogen fuel engine vehicle with swappable modular hydrogen tanks and integrated with solar power generation system synergistically combines the advantages of electric vehicle, the solar powered electric vehicle, and the hydrogen fuel engine vehicle. This combination of battery electric vehicle and hydrogen fuel engine vehicle mitigates the issues of prolong charging time of battery electric vehicle and prohibitive high cost of fuel cell electric vehicle. (See abstract).
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