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 09/19/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is directed to a "computer program product", however the body of the claim recites various circuitries, which according to the specification paragraph 75, "may comprise hardware, firmware, and/or software for performing methods according to examples of the present disclosure". Functional descriptive material such as a computer program must be structurally and functionally interrelated with a medium to allow its intended uses to be realized. Accordingly, claims directed to software per se are not statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2106.01 for further guidance and discussion on computer-related nonstatutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 23, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the recitation of a “computer-readable storage medium”, and none of the claims, specification, or record disclose that the claimed “computer-readable storage medium” is a non-transitory medium. Thus, the claimed “computer-readable storage medium” can be a transitory signal, which is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner suggests that the Applicant amend the claim to read “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
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 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(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (20050175875; hereinafter Nelson) in view of Staley et al. (20150099200; hereinafter Staley) in futher view of Sakai et al. (20200127312; hereinafter Sakai).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson teaches a fuel cell vehicle, comprising:
a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack (Nelson: “start-up coolant loop A may comprise fuel cell stack 20” ¶ 28);
a cooling system comprising a primary cooling subsystem configured to reduce a temperature of the fuel cell stack to an ambient temperature (Nelson: “start-up of the electrochemical fuel cell stack is under high ambient temperatures and the fuel cell stack can be started in a reasonable amount of time and quickly brought to the preferred operating temperature” ¶ 10, “illustrated in FIG. 2 as standard coolant loop B” ¶ 28), and an auxiliary cooling subsystem configured to assist the primary cooling subsystem to reduce the temperature of the fuel cell stack to below the ambient temperature (Nelson: “Coolant subsystem 100 additionally comprises a second start-up coolant loop A” ¶ 28, “When the temperature of either the coolant in coolant loop A or fuel cell stack 20 has reached a threshold temperature, stack valve 65 may open to begin letting coolant from coolant loop B in to fuel cell stack 20” ¶ 34, see also ¶ 35); and
However, Nelson fails to teach a control system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
estimate a duration of a stopover of the vehicle when a request for the stopover of the vehicle is detected;
determine whether the fuel cell system needs to be shut down during the stopover;
responsive to determining that the fuel cell system needs to be shut down during the stopover, determine whether a freeze preparation of the fuel cell system is required during the stopover;
responsive to determining that the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system is required during the stopover, determine whether the vehicle is expected to be occupied by a vehicle user during at least part of the duration of the stopover; and
responsive to determining that the vehicle is expected to be occupied by the vehicle user during at least part of the duration of the stopover, perform a forced freeze preparation of the fuel cell system at a time of the shutdown of the fuel cell system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches a control system comprising processing circuitry configured to (Staley: “any circuit or other electrical device disclosed herein may include any number of microprocessors” ¶ 16):
estimate a duration of a stopover of the vehicle when a request for the stopover of the vehicle is detected (Staley: “the controller determines if the next soak length is known” ¶ 37, see also ¶ 36);
determine whether the fuel cell system needs to be shut down during the stopover (Staley: “The soak length may also include information related to the length of time that the fuel cell will remain shut down as well as an estimated or predicted time for start up of the fuel cell system” ¶ 37);
responsive to determining that the fuel cell system needs to be shut down during the stopover, determine whether a freeze preparation of the fuel cell system is required during the stopover (Staley: “the controller determines if the predicted ambient temperature over the soak length will go below a threshold value (T1). In one embodiment, the threshold value may zero Celsius” ¶ 39);
responsive to determining that the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system is required during the stopover, ... (Staley: “the controller determines whether the temperature of the stack will go below a temperature threshold value (T2), or freezing level, based on the predicted ambient temperature, the predicted soak length, the stack operating temperature, and other factors” ¶ 40); and
responsive to determining that the vehicle is expected to … stopover, perform a forced freeze preparation of the fuel cell system at a time of the shutdown of the fuel cell system (Staley: “If this destination is known or predicted based on user input, stored knowledge of prior visits to this destination, or machine learning based on routing and probable destinations, the fuel cell may be prepared for freezing conditions by reducing the hydration state of the stack before arrival at the destination. This allows time to properly condition the system before shut down, and eliminates the need for energy-intensive freeze preparation measures such as a post shut down blow-out” ¶ 52).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of a stopover shutdown, and freeze preparation, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack lifetime (Staley: ¶ 54).
Secondly, Nelson in view of Staley fails to teach determine whether the vehicle is expected to be occupied by a vehicle user during at least part of the duration of the stopover;
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Sakai teaches determine whether the vehicle is expected to be occupied by a vehicle user during at least part of the duration of the stopover (Sakai: “The vehicle 11 is equipped with a passenger sensor 78 which detects the presence or absence of a passenger (user) inside the vehicle 11” ¶ 25, see also ¶ 80);
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson in view of Staley so that it also includes the element of occupancy detection as taught by Sakai, in order to improve user comfort (Sakai: ¶ 79, 80).
Regarding claim 2, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches the fuel cell vehicle of claim 1,
However, Nelson fails to teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, responsive to determining that the vehicle is not expected to be occupied by the vehicle user during at least part of the duration of the stopover:
determine whether it is possible to perform the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system;
and responsive to determining that it is possible to perform the freeze preparation, perform the forced freeze preparation at the time of the shutdown of the fuel cell system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, responsive to determining that the vehicle is not expected to be occupied by the vehicle user during at least part of the duration of the stopover (Staley: “The controller can learn the user's habits and employ this information to heat the system up quickly at start up if the drive history includes many short duration drives. Alternatively, the sensor history may be used to modify the post shut down freeze preparation, given knowledge of prior hydration states of the stack and the predicted ambient conditions based on weather forecasts ¶ 53, “The controller may know or be able to predict the exact location where the vehicle and fuel cell system are heading. This information, combined with prior route history, traffic information and other information either wirelessly available, determined by the controller, or entered through the user interface” ¶ 51, Note: Wherein user habits and soak times (periods vehicle is shutdown (stopover) / left) are determined and thus whether or not a vehicle is occupied):
determine whether it is possible to perform the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system (Staley: “vehicle may leave a sea level location at an ambient temperature of 20 Celsius, and drive to a high altitude destination with an ambient temperature of -30 Celsius or colder, where a freeze preparation is necessary” ¶ 52);
and responsive to determining that it is possible to perform the freeze preparation, perform the forced freeze preparation at the time of the shutdown of the fuel cell system (Staley: “If the temperature is below or predicted to be below its respective threshold value, the controller proceeds to 176 and completes the shut down process for the fuel cell system” ¶ 47).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of a freeze preparation for shutdown, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack lifetime (Staley: ¶ 54).
Regarding claim 3, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches the fuel cell vehicle of claim 1,
...
reducing the temperature of the fuel cell system below a first threshold level using one or both the primary cooling subsystem and the auxiliary cooling subsystem of the cooling system (Nelson: “Once the temperature of fuel cell stack 20 or the coolant exceeds a certain predetermined threshold, radiator valve 75 may direct the circulating coolant through radiator 70 to achieve additional cooling of the fuel cell system” ¶ 26); and
...
However, Nelson fails to teach wherein performing the forced freeze preparation at the time of the shutdown of the fuel cell system comprises:
instructing the fuel cell system to shut down;
...
performing the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches wherein performing the forced freeze preparation at the time of the shutdown of the fuel cell system comprises:
instructing the fuel cell system to shut down (Staley: “If the temperature is below or predicted to be below its respective threshold value, the controller proceeds to 176 and completes the shut down process for the fuel cell system” ¶ 47);
...
performing the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system (Staley: “If the temperature is below or predicted to be below its respective threshold value, the controller proceeds to 176 and completes the shut down process for the fuel cell system” ¶ 47).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of the freeze preparation for shutdown, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack lifetime (Staley: ¶ 54).
Regarding claim 4, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches the fuel cell vehicle of claim 1, ...
However, Nelson fails to teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to at least partially deactivate a monitoring unit of the control system and/or at least partially deactivate a monitoring unit of a vehicle control system of the fuel cell vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to at least partially deactivate a monitoring unit of the control system and/or at least partially deactivate a monitoring unit of a vehicle control system of the fuel cell vehicle (Staley: “The system may have an on-board monitor or diagnostic that periodically is scheduled to run and check the ambient temperature and fuel cell stack temperature” ¶ 46).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of partially deactivated monitoring, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack lifetime based on environment changes (Staley: ¶ 39, 50, 54).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches the fuel cell vehicle of claim 2,
However, Nelson fails to teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, responsive to determining that it is not possible to perform the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system:
determine whether it is possible to subsequently perform a wake-up of the fuel cell system during the stopover to perform the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, responsive to determining that it is not possible to perform the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system:
determine whether it is possible to subsequently perform a wake-up of the fuel cell system during the stopover to perform the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system (Staley: “If the relative humidity needs to be reduced further, a blow-out process similar to that shown in FIG. 4 could cause an additional decrease after shut down” ¶ 50).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of the freeze preparation after shutdown, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack lifetime (Staley: ¶ 50, 54).
Regarding claim 6, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches the fuel cell vehicle of claim 5,
However, Nelson fails to teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, responsive to determining that it is possible to subsequently perform the wake-up of the fuel cell system to perform the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system, shut down the fuel cell system without performing a freeze preparation.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, responsive to determining that it is possible to subsequently perform the wake-up of the fuel cell system to perform the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system, shut down the fuel cell system without performing a freeze preparation (Staley: “the blow out process may occur if the stack temperature is predicted to be below a threshold value (T4) which is the same as or is less than the threshold value (T2). A blow out process may be scheduled for a time period after fuel cell system shut down to allow the stack to cool down” ¶ 47).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of the freeze preparation after shutdown based on current factors, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack lifetime (Staley: ¶ 48, 50, 54).
Regarding claim 7, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches the fuel cell vehicle of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
...
determine, based on the monitoring, whether the temperature of the fuel cell system is below a second threshold level (Nelson: “Temperature sensors (not shown) may measure the temperature of fuel cell stack 20 and/or the temperature of the coolant circulating through coolant subsystem 10” ¶ 26); and
responsive to determining that the temperature of the fuel cell system is below the second threshold level (Nelson: “Once the coolant in coolant loop B reaches a second predetermined threshold, stack valve 65 may then open” ¶ 34),
...
Although Nelson discloses of monitoring temperature thresholds, Nelson remains silent explicitly regarding monitor an ambient temperature and a temperature of the fuel cell system, with the fuel cell system being shut down;
...
perform a wake-up of the fuel cell system, and performing the freeze preparation after the wake-up of the fuel cell system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches monitor an ambient temperature and a temperature of the fuel cell system, with the fuel cell system being shut down (Staley: “the controller proceeds to 166 and monitors the fuel cell system after shut down. The system may have an on-board monitor or diagnostic that periodically is scheduled to run and check the ambient temperature and fuel cell stack temperature” ¶ 46);
...
perform a wake-up of the fuel cell system, and performing the freeze preparation after the wake-up of the fuel cell system (Staley: “the controller determines that the stack temperature is predicted to be below its threshold temperature after shutdown ... If the relative humidity needs to be reduced further, a blow-out process similar to that shown in FIG. 4 could cause an additional decrease after shut down” ¶ 50, Note: Wherein the system is seen to perform a wake-up in order to perform a blow-out process (freeze preparation) of the fuel system).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of the freeze preparation after shutdown based on current temperature, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack lifetime (Staley: ¶ 51, 54).
Regarding claim 8, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches the fuel cell vehicle of claim 1,
...
However, Nelson remains silent regarding wherein determining whether the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system is required during the stopover of the vehicle is based on a predicted and/or current ambient temperature and/or a thermal model of the fuel cell system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches wherein determining whether the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system is required during the stopover of the vehicle is based on a predicted and/or current ambient temperature and/or a thermal model of the fuel cell system (Staley: “on-board and off-board sensor history can be used to determine the appropriate freeze preparation method for the fuel cell system. The controller can learn the user's habits and employ this information to heat the system up quickly at start up if the drive history includes many short duration drives. Alternatively, the sensor history may be used to modify the post shut down freeze preparation, given knowledge of prior hydration states of the stack and the predicted ambient conditions based on weather forecasts. Variable calibration and modified parameters, including threshold values and stack temperature estimation models or tables, may be downloaded from a remote source. By using information received from a wireless source, as well as from sensors on-board the fuel cell system ... The method may adapt as data is received and updated in real-time, thereby optimizing system operating conditions and selectively applying any post-shutdown procedures with foresight of the ambient conditions to which the the system may be subjected” ¶ 53).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of monitoring stopover of the vehicle, as taught by Staley, in order to accurately predict shut down conditions (Staley: ¶ 51, 52).
Regarding claim 9, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches the fuel cell vehicle claim 1,
...
However, Nelson fails to teach wherein the duration of the stopover of the vehicle is determined based on one or more out of a location of the vehicle, historical data on operation of the vehicle, and input from a driver of the vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches wherein the duration of the stopover of the vehicle is determined based on one or more out of a location of the vehicle, historical data on operation of the vehicle, and input from a driver of the vehicle (Staley: “the controller determines if the next soak length is known. The soak length corresponds to a time that the vehicle is predicted to be shut down. The soak length may also include information related to the length of time that the fuel cell will remain shut down as well as an estimated or predicted time for start up of the fuel cell system. The controller may receive a signal from the user interface providing information on the soak length. The controller may also estimate or predict the soak length at 160 using prior driving history, and the like” ¶ 37).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of stopover duration, as taught by Staley, in order to accurately predict shut down conditions (Staley: ¶ 51, 52).
Regarding claim 10, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches the fuel cell vehicle claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, ...
However, Nelson fails to teach responsive to determining that the fuel cell system needs to be shut down during the stopover and responsive to determining that the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system is not required during the stopover, shut down the fuel cell system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches responsive to determining that the fuel cell system needs to be shut down during the stopover and responsive to determining that the freeze preparation of the fuel cell system is not required during the stopover, shut down the fuel cell system (Staley: “when the fuel cell system is shut down, the relative humidity 210 is already at a low value, and no action needs to be taken” ¶ 50).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of shut down requirements, as taught by Staley, in order to improve shut down preparations (Staley: ¶ 51, 52).
In regards to claim(s) 11-19, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1-9, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches a control system for controlling the fuel cell system of the fuel cell vehicle (Nelson: “a fuel cell system is typically performed with a coolant circulated throughout a coolant subsystem” ¶ 25, see also ¶ 26, 27, 28), ...
However, Nelson fails to disclose of the control system comprising processing circuitry that is configured to perform a method of claim 11.
In a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches the control system comprising processing circuitry that is configured to perform a method of claim 11 (Staley: “any circuit or other electrical device disclosed herein may include any number of microprocessors” ¶ 16).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of circuitry, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack control (Staley: ¶ 54).
Regarding claim 21, Nelson in view of Staley in further view of Sakai teaches a fuel cell system comprising the control system of 20 (Nelson: “a fuel cell system is typically performed with a coolant circulated throughout a coolant subsystem” ¶ 25, see also ¶ 26, 27, 28).
Regarding claim 22, Nelson fails to teach a computer program product comprising instructions, which, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 11.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches a computer program product comprising instructions, which, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 11 (Staley: “any one or more of the electrical devices as disclosed herein may be configured to execute a computer-program that is embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium that is programmed to perform any number of the functions as disclosed herein” ¶ 16).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of a computer program, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack control (Staley: ¶ 54).
Regarding claim 23, Nelson fails to teach a computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform a method of any one of claim 11.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Staley teaches a computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform a method of any one of claim 11 (Staley: “any one or more of the electrical devices as disclosed herein may be configured to execute a computer-program that is embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium that is programmed to perform any number of the functions as disclosed herein” ¶ 16).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the fuel cell cooling system of Nelson so that it also includes the element of a computer program on a computer-readable storage medium, as taught by Staley, in order to improve fuel cell stack control (Staley: ¶ 54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rogahn et al. (20140093801) is in the similar field of endeavor of fuel cell stack protection as the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights