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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or
under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has received benefit for
an earlier priority date of 12/27/2023.
Applicant needs to submit a certified copy of Foreign Priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 and 08/05/2025 have been accepted by the examiner.
Specification
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
Grammatical and spelling mistakes are made throughout the disclosure rendering it confusing. Listed are a few non-limiting examples:
In paragraph 0007, line 3, “first startup” should read “second startup”
In paragraph 0067, line 3, “204of” should read “204 of”
In paragraph 0068, line 17, “shall depends” should read “shall depend”
In paragraph 0069, line 8, “system140” should read “system 140”
In paragraph 0070, line 2, “which collectively implementing” should read “which collectively implement”
In paragraph 0073, line 4, “at a predetermined intervals” should read “at predetermined intervals”
In paragraph 0073, line 8, “enabling each processors” should read “enabling each processor”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-16, which are dependent on claim 1, are similarly rejected because they did not certify the indefinite claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cader et al. USPGPUB 2019/0146565 (hereinafter “Cader”).
As to claim 1, Cader teaches a power supply system, comprising:
a processor (paragraph 0051, “A processing resource 662 may be a central processing unit”); and
memory coupled with the processor (paragraph 0051, “the processing resource 662 can be coupled to the memory resource 663”), wherein the memory comprises data stored thereon that is executable by the processor (paragraph 0051, “a memory resource 663 to store instructions 664, 666, 668 executable by a processing resource 662”), wherein the data includes first data that enables the processor to:
receive information about a power demand for an output power of a first fuel cell and an output power of an additional energy source (paragraph 0044, “the controller 550 can include instructions 554 that are executable by a processing resource to determine a first quantity of power to be provided by a first power source and a second quantity of power to be provided by a second power source” and paragraph 0045, “the second power source can be a fuel cell”);
generate control information that optimizes a ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source to meet the power demand (paragraph 0048, “controller 550 can include instructions to determine a time period to alter a power distribution percentage between the first power source and the second power source. In some examples, the determined time period can be a time period when an expected spike is about to occur” instructions to alter power distribution are interpreted as control information); and
deliver a control output to the first fuel cell and the additional energy source according to the control information that optimizes the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source (paragraph 0048, “the controller 550 can activate the fuel cell and alter the power distribution percentage during the expected spike such that the electrical grid does not have to provide the added resources to provide the additional power to the data center for non-spike periods”).
As to claim 2, Cader teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the additional energy source comprises at least one of a storage battery (paragraph 0013, “the fuel cell 102 in combination with a battery coupled to the fuel cell 102 can be utilized to power the number of computing devices during a time when the electrical grid is not working properly”), a second fuel cell, and a power generator (paragraph 0021, “electrical grid 224 to provide a first percentage of electrical energy to the data center 204 and allow the fuel cell 202 to provide a second percentage of electrical energy”, paragraph 0001, “An electrical grid can include a network that delivers electricity from producers to consumers. The producers can be power generators”).
As to claim 6, Cader teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the data further enables the processor to predict the power demand based on the information received about the power demand (paragraph 0046, “controller 550 utilizing a switching mechanism” and paragraph 0023, “data center 204 can have predictable spikes in computing resource demand (e.g., pre-Christmas shopping online, time periods when online auctions end, etc.). In these examples, the switching mechanism 226 can utilize additional electrical energy from the fuel cell 202 during the predicted spikes in computing resource demand”, predictable spikes enable to processor to predict higher power demand for the computing resources).
As to claim 17, Cader teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions stored thereon (claim 8, “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions to cause a computer processor”), wherein the processor-executable instructions enable a processor, when executed, to:
receive information about a power demand for an output power of a first fuel cell and an output power of an additional energy source (claim 8, “identify a load shedding time period” and paragraph 0047, “controller 550 can include instructions to alter a state of the second power source based on load shedding incentives from the electric utility company. As described further herein, a power company can provide monetary incentives to organizations that lower power consumption. In this way, the controller 550 can activate the fuel cell to provide supplemental power when the controller 550 lowers the power extracted from the electrical grid”);
generate control information that optimizes a ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source to meet the power demand (paragraph 0055, “instructions 666 that are executable by a processing resource 662 to lower a quantity of power provided by an electrical grid by a first quantity of power during the identified load shedding time period” and paragraph 0057, “instructions 668 that are executable by a processing resource 662 to increase a quantity of power provided by a fuel cell by the first quantity of power during the identified load shedding time period”);); and
deliver a control output to the first fuel cell and the additional energy source according to the control information that optimizes the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source (claim 8, “lower a quantity of power provided by an electrical grid by a first quantity of power during the identified load shedding time period; and increase a quantity of power provided by a fuel cell by the first quantity of power during the identified load shedding time period”).
As to claim 18, Cader teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the additional energy source comprises at least one of a second fuel cell, a storage battery (paragraph 0013, “the fuel cell 102 in combination with a battery coupled to the fuel cell 102 can be utilized to power the number of computing devices during a time when the electrical grid is not working properly”), and a power generator (paragraph 0021, “electrical grid 224 to provide a first percentage of electrical energy to the data center 204 and allow the fuel cell 202 to provide a second percentage of electrical energy”, paragraph 0001, “An electrical grid can include a network that delivers electricity from producers to consumers. The producers can be power generators”).
As to claim 20, Cader teaches a method, comprising:
receiving information about a power demand for an output power of a first fuel cell and an output power of an additional energy source (paragraph 0044, “the controller 550 can include instructions 554 that are executable by a processing resource to determine a first quantity of power to be provided by a first power source and a second quantity of power to be provided by a second power source” and paragraph 0045, “the second power source can be a fuel cell”);
generating control information that optimizes a ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source to meet the power demand (paragraph 0048, “controller 550 can include instructions to determine a time period to alter a power distribution percentage between the first power source and the second power source. In some examples, the determined time period can be a time period when an expected spike is about to occur”); and
delivering a control output to the first fuel cell and the additional energy source according to the control information that optimizes the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source (paragraph 0048, “the controller 550 can activate the fuel cell and alter the power distribution percentage during the expected spike such that the electrical grid does not have to provide the added resources to provide the additional power to the data center for non-spike periods”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cader et al. USPGPUB 2019/0146565 (hereinafter “Cader”) in view of Suryanarayana et al. USPGPUB 2023/0115739 (hereinafter “Suryanarayana”).
As to claim 3, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Cader does not explicitly teach wherein the first fuel cell comprises a first startup period, wherein the second fuel cell comprises a second startup period, and wherein the first startup period is different from the first startup period.
However, Suryanarayana teaches wherein a first fuel cell comprises a first startup period, wherein the second fuel cell comprises a second startup period, and wherein the first startup period is different from the first startup period (paragraph 0001, “It may be desirable to use one or more fuel cells, for example, hydrogen fuel cells, as a source of primary or backup power in an electrical architecture of a datacenter or similar facility… Reliable integration of one or more fuel cells into a datacenter architecture may need to address the existence of various fuel cell technologies with different start-up and ramp times”).
Cader and Suryanarayana are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to data center fuel cell control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the above data center fuel cell control system, as taught by Cader, to incorporate wherein a first fuel cell comprises a first startup period, wherein the second fuel cell comprises a second startup period, and wherein the first startup period is different from the first startup period, as taught by Suryanarayana.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply fuel cell startup control techniques to increase the reliability and electric protection for newer fuel cell technologies in a data center fuel cell control system, as suggested by Suryanarayana, where the startup periods are different for different fuel cells, as taught by Suryanarayana (paragraph 0001).
Claims 4 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cader et al. USPGPUB 2019/0146565 (hereinafter “Cader”) in view of Wenzel et al. USPGPUB 2022/0390137 (hereinafter “Wenzel”).
As to claim 4, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Cader does not explicitly teach wherein the data further enables the processor to optimize the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source between a range of 20% and 80% of a load capacity of the first fuel cell.
However, Wenzel teaches wherein the data further enables the processor to optimize the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source between a range of 20% and 80% of a load capacity of the first fuel cell (paragraph 0404, “the lower limit of the deadband is at 20% of the maximum historical MOER and the upper limit of the deadband is at 80% of the maximum historical MOER” and paragraph 0328, “because different renewable sources and fossil-fuel consuming plants may come online at different times or under different total demands on the grid, the source of power that generates a marginal unit of energy also changes over time such that the carbon emissions associated with marginal energy consumption”).
Cader and Wenzel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to fuel cell control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the above fuel cell control system, as taught by Cader, to incorporate optimizing the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source between a range of 20% and 80% of a load capacity of the first fuel cell, as taught by Wenzel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply power management techniques to reduce operational costs and modularize a fuel cell control system, as suggested by Wenzel, where the power of fuel cells are being managed, as taught by Wenzel (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 14, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Cader does not explicitly teach wherein the first fuel cell and the additional energy source are installed in a common power plant.
However, Wenzel teaches wherein the first fuel cell and the additional energy source are installed in a common power plant (fig. 8, a fuel cell and battery cells are located within the chiller, paragraph 0062, “CEF 200 is shown to include a plurality of subplants 202-212 including a heater subplant 202, a heat recovery chiller subplant 204, a chiller subplant 206” and paragraph 0065, “Chiller subplant 206 is shown to include a plurality of chillers”, the CEF (Central Energy Facility) is interpreted as a common power plant, as it provides power to the subplants, including the chiller subplant where the fuel cell and battery cells reside).
As to claim 15, Cader and Wenzel teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Wenzel further teaches wherein the processor and the memory are also installed in the common power plant (fig. 4, Predictive CEF controller is located within the Central Energy Facility, paragraph 0086, “Predictive CEF controller 304 is shown to include a communications interface 502 and a processing circuit 504” and paragraph 0088, “Processing circuit 504 is shown to include a processor 506 and memory 508”).
As to claim 16, Cader and Wenzel teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Wenzel further teaches wherein the control information is further used by other power plants (paragraph 0083, “CEF controller 304 generates and provides control signals to powered CEF components 402”, paragraph 0077, “Powered CEF components 402 may include any component of CEF 300 that consumes power (e.g., electricity) during operation” and paragraph 0124, “batteries used to power the cooling equipment (e.g., a chiller subplant) and the heating equipment (e.g., a heater subplant)”).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cader et al. USPGPUB 2019/0146565 (hereinafter “Cader”) in view of Boss et al. USPGPUB 2010/0213763 (hereinafter “Boss”).
As to claim 5, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, wherein the data further enables the processor to optimize the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source.
Cader does not explicitly teach that the output power of the first fuel cell is within a range below a predetermined maximum operating frequency with respect to degradation, based on a frequency variation of a power demand time series.
However, Boss teaches that the output power of the first fuel cell is within a range below a predetermined maximum operating frequency with respect to degradation, based on a frequency variation of a power demand time series (paragraph 0029, “A UPS comprises stored power devices (e.g., batteries) or independent fuel powered devices (e.g., fuel cells (hydrogen, methanol, etc)” and paragraph 0040, “At 2:00 pm, a power transmission grid (e.g., power transmission grid 7) connected to a UPS (e.g., UPS 18) experiences a significant generator loss and a (grid interconnect) frequency falls to 59.9 Hz. The UPS immediately begins producing 100% of the required power… At 2:05 pm, the frequency has recovered to 59.925 Hz and power output is reduced to either 75% of the rated capacity or 100% of the required power. At 2:10 pm, the frequency has recovered to 59.95 Hz and the UPS output has declined to either 50% of rated capacity or 100% of required power. At 2:12 pm, the frequency has recovered to 60 Hz and the UPS discontinues producing power”).
Cader and Boss are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to fuel cell control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the above fuel cell control system, as taught by Cader, to incorporate wherein the output power of the first fuel cell is within a range below a predetermined maximum operating frequency with respect to degradation, based on a frequency variation of a power demand time series, as taught by Boss.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply fuel cell power management techniques to monitor and modify multiple systems accurately and with flexibility, as suggested by Boss, where the output power of a first fuel cell is within a range below a predetermined maximum operating frequency with respect to degradation, based on a frequency variation of a power demand time series (paragraph 0002).
As to claim 13, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Cader does not explicitly teach wherein the data further enables the processor to perform a frequency analysis on variations in a power demand time series and then, based on the frequency analysis, update the control information for optimizing the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source.
However, Boss teaches wherein the data further enables the processor to perform a frequency analysis on variations in a power demand time series (paragraph 0040, “At 2:00 pm, a power transmission grid (e.g., power transmission grid 7) connected to a UPS (e.g., UPS 18) experiences a significant generator loss and a (grid interconnect) frequency falls to 59.9 Hz. The UPS immediately begins producing 100% of the required power… At 2:05 pm, the frequency has recovered to 59.925 Hz and power output is reduced to either 75% of the rated capacity or 100% of the required power. At 2:10 pm, the frequency has recovered to 59.95 Hz and the UPS output has declined to either 50% of rated capacity or 100% of required power. At 2:12 pm, the frequency has recovered to 60 Hz and the UPS discontinues producing power”), and then, based on the frequency analysis update the control information for optimizing the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source (paragraph 0029, “A UPS comprises stored power devices (e.g., batteries) or independent fuel powered devices (e.g., fuel cells (hydrogen, methanol, etc)”).
Claims 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cader et al. USPGPUB 2019/0146565 (hereinafter “Cader”) in view of Yokoyama et al. USPGPUB 2023/0001825 (hereinafter “Yokoyama”).
As to claim 7, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Cader does not explicitly teach wherein the data further enables the processor to generate a plurality of supply-plans that plan the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source over a predetermined period of time based on the predicted power demand.
However, Yokoyama teaches wherein the data further enables the processor to generate a plurality of supply-plans (paragraph 0015, “the controller prepares a plurality of charging plans” and paragraph 0036, “Controller 20 is implemented, for example, by an integrated circuit including a central processing unit (CPU)”) that plan the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source (paragraph 0081, “controller 20 of server 2 functions as… a plan preparation unit 204”, paragraph 0087, “plan preparation unit 204 increases a ratio of wireless charging in the charging plan… increase in ratio of wireless charging means lowering in ratio of contact charging”, paragraph 0046, “vehicle 3 includes battery 30” and paragraph 0125, “Vehicle 3 may be, for example, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle or a fuel cell electric vehicle”, the wireless charging and contact charging can be utilized to power the battery and fuel cells of the vehicle) over a predetermined period of time based on the predicted power demand (paragraph 0015, “a charging plan that best satisfies a condition set in advance” and paragraph 0016, “a condition concerning an amount of stored power in the battery at the time of arrival at the destination, a condition concerning a time period required for travel from the current location to the destination, or a condition concerning a travel distance from the current location to the destination is included”).
Cader and Yokoyama are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to fuel cell control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the above fuel cell control system, as taught by Cader, to incorporate wherein the data further enables the processor to generate a plurality of supply-plans that plan the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source over a predetermined period of time based on the predicted power demand, as taught by Yokoyama.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply control techniques for fuel cells to prepare a charging plan capable of achieving advanced energy efficiency, where the plurality of supply-plans that plan the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source over a predetermined period of time based on the predicted power demand, as taught by Yokoyama (paragraph 0005).
As to claim 8, Cader and Yokoyama teach all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Yokoyama further teaches wherein the data further enables the processor to: select an optimal supply plan from among the plurality of supply-plans (paragraph 0015, “the controller prepares a plurality of charging plans, and adopts as a recommended plan, a charging plan that best satisfies a condition set in advance among the plurality of charging plans”), wherein the optimal supply plan is selected to optimize at least one of efficiency, equipment cost, and degradation of the output power of the first fuel cell and/or the additional energy source (paragraph 0005, “an object of the present disclosure is to prepare a charging plan capable of achieving enhanced energy efficiency”); and adjust the control information based on the selection of the optimal supply plan (paragraph 0062, “server 2 searches for a travel route, prepares a charging plan for each travel route, and sends the charging plan back to vehicle 3” and paragraph 0018, “prepares the charging plan from a current location to a destination of the movable body”, the charging plan adjusts the travel route of the vehicle).
As to claim 9, Cader and Yokoyama teach all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Yokoyama further teaches wherein the optimal supply plan is selected based on results of simulating a control and state changes of the first fuel cell and the additional energy source according to each of the plurality of supply-plans (paragraph 0040, “Controller 20 collects position information (GPS information) and state of charge (SOC) information from vehicle 3 through communication apparatus 24. Such information may periodically be transmitted, for example, from vehicle 3 to server 2… The vehicle information further includes… a state (for example, a state of deterioration and a full charge capacity of the battery) of vehicle 3”, paragraph 0041, “Map 23 is determined in advance based on specifications of vehicle 3, experiments, or a result of simulation” and paragraph 0062, “server 2 searches for a travel route, prepares a charging plan for each travel route, and sends the charging plan back to vehicle 3” and paragraph 0062).
As to claim 11, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, wherein the data further enables the processor to optimize the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source
Cader does not explicitly teach that an output of the first fuel cell is stopped during a startup period determined in advance for the first fuel cell.
However, Yokoyama teaches that an output of the first fuel cell is stopped during a startup period determined in advance for the first fuel cell (paragraph 0079, “Power transmission apparatus 7 is driven to supply electric power indicated in the information on requested power…. When a quitting condition is satisfied, ECU 40 of vehicle 3 transmits the stop request to power transmission apparatus 7 through server 2… a condition that a time period set in advance has elapsed” and paragraph 0125, “Vehicle 3 may be, for example, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle or a fuel cell electric vehicle”, a startup time period may be set in advance for the fuel cell, during which it may be stopped).
As to claim 12, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, wherein the data further enables the processor to optimize the ratio of the output power of the first fuel cell and the output power of the additional energy source
Cader does not explicitly teach using an evaluation function based on a weighted evaluation of efficiency, equipment cost, and degradation of output power of the first fuel cell and/or the additional energy source.
However, Yokoyama teaches using an evaluation function based on a weighted evaluation of efficiency, equipment cost, and degradation of output power of the first fuel cell and/or the additional energy source (paragraph 0062, “CPU 421 may perform a function to search for a travel route and to present the travel route based on the map information”, paragraph 0041, “Map 23 is determined in advance based on specifications of vehicle 3” and paragraph 0040, “The vehicle information further includes… specifications (including specifications of battery 30), and a state (for example, a state of deterioration and a full charge capacity of the battery)”).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cader et al. USPGPUB 2019/0146565 (hereinafter “Cader”) in view of Telford USPGPUB 2023/0322204 (hereinafter “Telford”).
As to claim 10, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Cader does not explicitly teach wherein the information about the power demand is received from at least one of a truck management system, a ship management system, a pipeline management system, a fuel tank management system, and a carbon credit system.
However, Telford teaches wherein information about the power demand is received from at least one of a truck management system, a ship management system, a pipeline management system, a fuel tank management system, and a carbon credit system (paragraph 0013, “the hybridized fuel cell powertrain can provide energy to operate the necessary vehicle peripherals and, in certain case, to meet the energy demands of cargo management for trucks”).
Cader and Telford a are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to fuel cell power management control systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the above fuel cell power management control system, as taught by Cader, to incorporate wherein information about the power demand is received from at least one of a truck management system, a ship management system, a pipeline management system, a fuel tank management system, and a carbon credit system, as taught by Suryanarayana.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply power management and control techniques for fuel cell vehicles to increase the overall vehicle efficiency and lower fuel consumption, as suggested by Suryanarayana, where the information about the power demand is received from a truck management system, as taught by Telford (paragraph 0002).
As to claim 19, Cader teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Cader does not explicitly teach wherein the information about the power demand is received from at least one of a truck management system, a ship management system, a pipeline management system, a fuel tank management system, and a carbon credit system.
However, Telford teaches wherein information about the power demand is received from at least one of a truck management system, a ship management system, a pipeline management system, a fuel tank management system, and a carbon credit system (paragraph 0013, “the hybridized fuel cell powertrain can provide energy to operate the necessary vehicle peripherals and, in certain case, to meet the energy demands of cargo management for trucks”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shaikh et al. USP 11314304 teaches datacenter power management for variable power sources, such as one or more fuel cells, with an optimization engine to achieve power management goals.
Mori et al. USPGPUB 2022/0059855 teaches a power supply control system comprising a plurality of fuel cells, where controllers control power generation on the basis of the state of the fuel cell system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISAT TABASSUM NOSIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (7:30am - 5:00pm EST).
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571)272-4105. 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.
/NISAT TABASSUM NOSIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights