DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20220059855)
Re Claim 1 and 20; Mori discloses a power supply control system and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a control device (80), a supervisory ECU (100), and a plurality of fuel cell systems (200A, 200B, 200C) (FIG. 1, paragraphs [0031]–[0043]).
Mori discloses a power demand input to receive information related to a power demand at [0034]–[0035], where the control device (80) receives input from vehicle sensors (20) including accelerator opening degree, brake depression amount, and vehicle speed, which represent power demand.
Mori discloses an output terminal that provides communication capabilities with a fuel cell and an additional energy source, and wherein the output terminal is used to provide a control output to the fuel cell and the additional energy source, at [0036]–[0038], where the DC link (DL) connects the fuel cell systems and the battery system (40), enabling communication and power transfer.
Mori discloses wherein the control output comprises a first composition defining a first power to originate from the fuel cell and a second composition defining a second power to originate from the additional energy source at [0010]–[0012], where the supervisory ECU determines how much power is generated by each fuel cell system and the battery system to meet demand.
Mori discloses a processing unit that adjusts one or both of the first composition and the second composition to optimize a ratio of the first composition and the second composition at [0010], [0012], and [0043], where the control device (80) and supervisory ECU (100) adjust power generation based on deterioration degree and efficiency.
Mori discloses an output controller in communication with the processing unit and the output terminal, wherein the output controller causes the output terminal to adjust the first composition and the second composition according to the ratio adjustments made by the processing unit at [0043], where the supervisory ECU (100) acts as the output controller that executes the adjustments determined by the control device.
wherein the optimization of the first composition and the second composition comprises optimizing a ratio of an output power of the fuel cell and an output power of the additional energy source based on a frequency of analysis that is performed based on variations in a power demand time series. (Fig. 11 iterative, repeated analysis based on changing load. “The process is iteratively executed at a predetermined timing or interval while the electric vehicle is travelling.” “The power generation controller 108 determined based on required electro power… and deterioration degree”. “Required electric power… varies with load”
this is a direct disclosure of periodic analysis based on varying power demand over time)
Mori does not explicitly disclose an orchestration controller in communication with the processing unit to provide information concerning optimization of the first composition and the second composition so as to enable the processing unit to adaptively adjust the first composition and the second composition to meet the power demand. While Mori teaches adaptive control and optimization through collaboration between the control device (80) and supervisory ECU (100), it does not identify a distinct orchestration controller that provides optimization information to a separate processing unit.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a separate orchestration controller to modularize the optimization logic. Separating orchestration from execution improves scalability, maintainability, and upgradeability of the control architecture. This is a routine design choice in layered control systems, especially in distributed energy platforms, where optimization logic may be centralized or abstracted for reuse across multiple subsystems.
Re Claim 2: Mori discloses a first layer processor in communication with the power demand input and a plurality of secondary layer processors is disclosed in Mori at [0042]–[0043], where the control device (80) functions as the first layer processor and communicates with the supervisory ECU (100) and individual FC system controllers, which serve as secondary layer processors.
wherein more than 50% of the plurality of secondary layer processors are located external to a plant where the first layer processor is located and wherein real-time communication between the first layer processor and the plurality of secondary layer processors is unpredictable is not explicitly disclosed.
However, Mori describes distributed FC systems and layered associations in [0014], implying that some controllers may be remote or subject to asynchronous communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective file of the invention to implement a distributed control architecture with remote processors to support modular deployment of FC systems across large vehicles or platforms, improving scalability and fault isolation.
Re Claim 3: Mori discloses the first layer processor is located adjacent to at least one processor from the plurality of secondary layer processors is disclosed in Mori at [0031], where the control device (80) and supervisory ECU (100) are co-located within the vehicle and communicate directly with FC system controllers, implying adjacency.
Re Claim 4: Mori discloses FC systems include multiple components (e.g., FCVCU, cooling system, sensors) as shown in FIG. 2, implying internal sub-processors.
each of the plurality of secondary layer processors includes a plurality of secondary layer additional processors as well as a plurality of third layer additional processors located in a remote location where real-time communication between the first layer processor and the plurality of secondary layer processors is unpredictable is not explicitly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement multi-tiered control logic within each FC system to manage local subsystems and enable remote diagnostics, especially in complex vehicles with distributed energy systems.
Re Claim 5: Mori discloses layered fault handling and group-based FC system selection ([0014]) imply hierarchical communication paths.
the plurality of secondary layer processors further includes a plurality of fourth layer processors, and wherein the first layer processor is capable of communicating with each of the plurality of fourth layer processors through at least one of the plurality of secondary layer processors and at least one of the plurality of third layer additional processors is not explicitly disclosed.
However, A POSITA would recognize the benefit of deeper processor hierarchies to support specialized functions such as environmental monitoring, predictive maintenance, or regulatory compliance, especially in large-scale or mission-critical systems.
Re Claim 6: Mori discloses the first layer processor is in communication with a demand forecast unit and wherein the demand forecast unit computes a total power demand for a target consumer network is disclosed in Mori at [0042], where the control device (80) receives power demand from vehicle sensors and computes total required electric power.
Re Claim 7: Mori discloses an additional first layer processor that is connected to an additional fuel cell that is controlled by an additional processing unit is disclosed in Mori at [0031], [0043], where multiple FC systems each have their own controller and are coordinated by the supervisory ECU.
Re Claim 8: Mori discloses the first layer processor is configured to compute a conversion efficiency of the fuel cell by way of receiving inputs from the plurality of secondary layer processors is disclosed in Mori at [0010], [0012], and [0043], where deterioration and efficiency metrics are computed based on operational data from each FC system.
Re Claim 9: Mori discloses the first layer processor is configured to compute an evaluation function based on a combination weighted evaluation of a lifespan, fuel efficiency, capex investment, and degradation of the fuel cell and/or the additional energy source is disclosed in Mori at [0010]–[0012], where FC systems are selected based on deterioration and efficiency.
Capex investment is not mentioned.
A POSITA would include capital cost in the evaluation function to support lifecycle cost optimization, which is a common practice in industrial energy systems.
Re Claim 10: Mori discloses one of the plurality of secondary layer processors implements a power management system and wherein the fuel cell, the additional energy source, the output terminal, and the output controller form a portion of the power management system is disclosed in Mori at [0042]–[0043], where each FC system includes its own controller and is part of a coordinated power management system with the battery system and DC link.
Re Claim 11: Mori discloses optimizes based on deterioration degree ([0010]–[0012]).
the power management system comprises a fuel cell system that provides information containing an optimization of the first composition and the second composition related to an aspect of preventing cracks of one or more components within the fuel cell according to an optimization function describing a lifetime of the fuel cell is not explicitly disclosed.
However, a POSITA would recognize that reducing deterioration inherently reduces mechanical stress such as cracking. Including crack prevention in the optimization function is a predictable enhancement to extend fuel cell life.
Re Claim 12: Mori discloses in FIG. 9, where FC systems are selectively activated or stopped based on deterioration and load.
Mori does not disclose the power management system comprises a fuel cell system that provides information to maintain first fuel cell between approximately 20% and 80% of a load capacity of the fuel cell.
However, operating within mid-range load avoids over-stressing the fuel cell and improves efficiency and a POSITA would implement this to balance performance and longevity.
Re Claim 13: Mori discloses the power management system comprises a fuel cell system that provides information to optimize the first composition and the second composition according to an optimization function that maximizes a conversion efficiency of the fuel cell is disclosed in Mori at [0010], [0012], and [0043].
Re Claim 14: Mori discloses the power management system comprises a load management system to provide information concerning an optimization of the first composition and the second composition according to an optimization function that maximizes a conversion efficiency of the fuel cell by maintaining loading capacity data of the fuel cell and the additional energy source is disclosed in Mori at [0042]–[0043], where the control device manages load distribution across FC systems and the battery system. Load management is essential for balancing energy sources and avoiding overuse. A POSITA would implement this to maintain optimal operating conditions and extend system life.
Re Claim 15: Mori discloses the power management system comprises a carbon credit system to provide information to the processing unit such that an optimization of the first composition and the second composition is performed in accordance with a function to maximize carbon credit ratings is not disclosed in Mori.
A POSITA would recognize that optimizing fuel cell usage to reduce emissions aligns with carbon credit incentives. Including carbon credit logic is a predictable design choice for regulatory compliance and environmental benefit.
Re Claim 16: Mori discloses architecture supports integration of additional energy sources ([0036]–[0038]).
the additional energy source comprises a micro-gas turbine and wherein the power management system comprises a gray power system to provide carbon credit information such that optimization of the first composition and the second composition is performed according to a function to maximize a carbon credit rating is not disclosed in Mori.
A POSITA would substitute or supplement the battery system with a micro-gas turbine to increase flexibility and include carbon credit logic to meet sustainability goals.
Re Claim 17: Mori discloses the first layer processor receives a transport utilization information from one of the plurality of secondary layer processors that is located remotely therefrom is not explicitly disclosed in Mori.
However, Mori describes a layered control structure in which the supervisory ECU (100) and control device (80) coordinate with multiple fuel cell systems (200A, 200B, 200C), each with its own controller (FIG. 1, FIG. 2, [0042]–[0043]). These FC systems may be distributed across a large vehicle or platform, and Mori explicitly discusses layered associations and remote fault isolation ([0014]), implying that some processors may be remote and capable of reporting operational data.
and based on the transport utilization information, optimizes the first composition and the second composition to maintain the fuel cell between approximately 20% and 80% of a load capacity of the fuel cell is disclosed in Mori at FIG. 9, where the supervisory ECU selectively activates or stops FC systems based on deterioration degree and load, resulting in operation within a mid-range load window.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate transport utilization data—such as vehicle load, route, or usage pattern—into the optimization logic to better match energy supply with demand and preserve fuel cell health. This is a predictable use of known data sources to improve system performance and longevity.
Re Claim 18: Mori states that the electric device may be a mobile object such as a vehicle, ship, or drone ([0030]), and that the control system is adaptable to various platforms.
the transport utilization information is received from a transportation management system that includes at least one of a truck management system, a vessel management system, and a pipeline management system is not disclosed in Mori.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate transportation management systems into the control architecture of such mobile platforms to provide real-time operational context (e.g., route, cargo, speed), which can inform energy optimization strategies. This integration is a routine design choice in fleet and energy management systems.
Re Claim 19: Mori explicitly includes ships and flying objects as examples of electric devices in which the power supply control system may be mounted ([0030]).
Mori discloses one of the pluralities of secondary layer processors comprises a vessel management system is not disclosed in Mori.
Given that Mori’s system is designed to operate in ships, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement a vessel management system as one of the secondary layer processors to provide navigation, load, or environmental data to the supervisory ECU. This is a predictable adaptation of the control architecture to a maritime context.
Re Claim 21; Mori discloses wherein the orchestration controller further supplies power to a plurality of energy suppliers, wherein the plurality of energy suppliers are inter-connected through a layer of the processing unit via the orchestration controller. (Fig. 1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Mori Does Not Teach Optimizing First and Second “Compositions”
Applicant argues that Mori does not teach or suggest optimizing a “first composition” and a “second composition,” and therefore cannot disclose optimizing a ratio of output power between a fuel cell and an additional energy source. Applicant further asserts that because Mori does not use the term “composition,” it cannot satisfy the claim.
Examiner’s Respectful Disagreement
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim uses the term “composition” in a functional sense to describe how the system defines and adjusts the relative contributions of two energy sources. The claim does not require a specific data structure or algorithm. Mori teaches this same functionality by determining how much power each fuel cell system should generate and how much power should be supplied by the battery system, and by adjusting these contributions dynamically based on required electric power and system conditions. Although Mori does not use the applicant’s chosen term “composition,” the underlying functionality is present. The distinction raised by the applicant is therefore semantic rather than substantive.
Supporting Mori Paragraphs
• Mori teaches determining the amount of electric power to be generated by each FC system based on required electric power and deterioration degree:
“The first controller determines at least one of the number of fuel cell systems to be allowed to generate the electric power and an amount of electric power to be generated by each fuel cell system…” (¶[0009]).
• Mori teaches adjusting the relative contributions of multiple energy sources:
“The power controller 86 adjusts an amount of electric power to be supplied from the battery system 40 or an amount of electric power to be generated by the FC system 200…” (¶[0042]).
• Mori teaches selecting which FC systems generate power and in what proportion:
“The supervisory ECU 100 controls power generation of each of the plurality of fuel cell systems…” (¶[0043]).
Applicant Argument: Mori Does Not Teach Optimization Based on a Frequency of Analysis Tied to Variations in a Power-Demand Time Series
Applicant argues that Mori fails to disclose optimization based on a “frequency of analysis” performed according to variations in a power‑demand time series.
Examiner’s Respectful Disagreement
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require any particular mathematical model or statistical treatment of a time series. It simply requires repeated analysis based on changes in power demand over time. Mori explicitly teaches that the control process is executed at regular intervals while the vehicle is operating, and that the required electric power varies with load. Mori’s system repeatedly recalculates the amount of power each fuel cell system should generate in response to these changing conditions. This constitutes a frequency of analysis driven by variations in power demand over time. The fact that Mori does not label this process as “time‑series analysis” does not mean the functionality is absent.
Supporting Mori Paragraphs
• Mori teaches periodic execution of the control process:
“The process of FIG. 11 is iteratively executed at a predetermined timing or interval while the electric vehicle is traveling.” (¶[0028]).
• Mori teaches that required electric power varies with load and must be recalculated:
“The required electric power from the electric vehicle 10 is… total load power required for the load of the electric vehicle 10 to be driven or operated.” (¶[0042]).
• Mori teaches repeated recalculation of power allocation:
“The power generation controller 108 determines… based on required electric power and deterioration degree.” (FIG. 11, S110–S114).
Mori Lacks an Orchestration Controller Communicating Optimization Information to a Processing Unit
Applicant argues that Mori does not explicitly disclose an “orchestration controller” communicating optimization information to a processing unit.
Examiner’s Respectful Disagreement
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require a controller with the specific name “orchestration controller.” It requires a controller that communicates optimization‑related information to another processing unit. Mori teaches this exact arrangement. Mori describes a second controller that acquires state information from each fuel cell system and sends it to the supervisory ECU. The supervisory ECU then performs optimization and sends control instructions back to the fuel cell systems. This bidirectional exchange of optimization‑related information is functionally identical to what the claim requires. The applicant’s argument focuses on terminology rather than the actual operation of the system.
Supporting Mori Paragraphs
• Mori teaches a second controller that acquires state information and sends it to the supervisory ECU:
“The second controller acquires a state of the fuel cell system… and notifies the first controller of the state…” (¶[0007]).
• Mori teaches a first controller that performs optimization and sends instructions back:
“The supervisory ECU 100 controls power generation of each of the plurality of fuel cell systems…” (¶[0043]).
• Mori teaches coordinated communication between controllers:
“The supervisory ECU 100 includes a plurality of communication interfaces… each communicates with the FC system.” (¶[0043]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
04/07/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights