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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP24177033.8, filed on 05/21/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 is objected to because of minor grammatical and terminology informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites:
“The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1, wherein control unit is configured to detect the upcoming brake by the vehicle by looking ahead a predetermined time period, wherein the predetermined time period corresponds to a time required to actively cool the resistor to a nominal temperature.”
First, the phrase:
“wherein control unit is configured”
omits the definite article “the” before “control unit.” Claim 1 previously introduces “a control unit.” The language should therefore be amended to read:
“wherein the control unit is configured…”
Second, Claim 1 introduces “an upcoming brake event”, whereas Claim 2 subsequently refers to “the upcoming brake.” To maintain consistent terminology and avoid unnecessary ambiguity, “the upcoming brake” should be amended to “the upcoming brake event.”
Accordingly, appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 is objected to because of inconsistent terminology. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites:
“The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to detect the upcoming brake by the vehicle within the time period, the time period corresponding to a distance window.”
Claim 1 introduces the relevant condition as:
“an upcoming brake event.”
Claim 3 thereafter refers to the same condition as:
“the upcoming brake.”
For clarity and consistency of terminology throughout the claim set, the phrase should be amended to:
“the upcoming brake event.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 13
Claim 13 is objected to because of inconsistent terminology. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites:
“The method according to claim 11, wherein the step of detecting the upcoming brake event comprises detecting the upcoming brake by the vehicle within the time period, the time period corresponding to a distance window.”
Claim 11 introduces:
“an upcoming brake event of the vehicle”
and Claim 13 itself initially refers to:
“the upcoming brake event,”
but then changes the terminology within the same claim to:
“the upcoming brake.”
The terminology should be made consistent by amending:
“detecting the upcoming brake by the vehicle”
to:
“detecting the upcoming brake event by the vehicle.”
Appropriate correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(m), Form Paragraph 7.29.01, expressly identifies inconsistent terminology as an appropriate subject of a claim objection where the inconsistency is a minor informality rather than an indefiniteness defect.
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 4, 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
During examination, the claim language is considered as a whole in light of the specification. A rejection under § 112(b) is appropriate where the language does not permit a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the metes and bounds of the claim with the required clarity. The Office should identify the particular language causing the uncertainty and explain why that language renders the scope indeterminate. MPEP §§ 2173.02 and 2173.05.
Regarding Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites:
“The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a fuel cell system, wherein the temperature acceptance criterion corresponds to a ramp down time of the fuel cell system.”
The limitation:
“wherein the temperature acceptance criterion corresponds to a ramp down time of the fuel cell system”
renders the scope of Claim 4 indefinite.
Claim 1 introduces a “temperature acceptance criterion” against which the predicted temperature of the energy dissipating resistor at the onset of the upcoming brake event is evaluated. Claim 4 further requires that this temperature acceptance criterion “corresponds to a ramp down time of the fuel cell system.” However, the claim does not define what relationship is required by the term “corresponds to.”
The uncertainty is material because the recited quantities are different in nature. The temperature acceptance criterion defines a thermal acceptance boundary, whereas the ramp down time defines a temporal duration associated with reduction of fuel-cell-system power.
The specification does not resolve the required relationship. Paragraph [0011] states that the temperature acceptance criterion may be related to several different parameters, including the resistor mass, resistor heat capacity, the time window, brake power to be dissipated, and resistor temperature. Paragraph [0015] thereafter states that “[t]he temperature acceptance criterion may correspond to a ramp down time of the fuel cell system,” but does not explain how the temperature criterion is derived from or otherwise quantitatively or functionally related to the ramp-down time. The detailed description similarly states that the temperature acceptance criterion “may correspond to a ramp down time of the fuel cell system 30” without defining the requisite relationship.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the recitation requires:
the temperature acceptance criterion to be mathematically calculated as a function of the ramp-down time;
the criterion to be selected based upon or with reference to the ramp-down time;
the criterion to vary as the ramp-down time varies;
the predicted resistor temperature to remain within the criterion for the duration of the ramp-down time; or
some other relationship between the temperature criterion and the ramp-down duration.
The use of “corresponds to” therefore leaves more than one reasonable interpretation of the relationship required between the two claim limitations, without an objective boundary for determining which relationships satisfy the claim.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation, and Claim 4 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites:
“The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a compressor arranged in connection with the fuel cell system and configured to provide air to the fuel cell system, wherein the control unit is configured to actively cool the resistor, in preparation for the upcoming brake event, by the compressor.”
The recitations:
“the fuel cell system”
lack clear antecedent basis and render uncertain the particular system to which the compressor is required to be connected and to which the compressor is required to provide air.
Claim 5 depends directly from Claim 1. Claim 1 introduces:
“A vehicle fuel cell system”
but does not separately introduce “a fuel cell system” as a component of the vehicle fuel cell system. Claim 5 nevertheless subsequently refers to “the fuel cell system.”
The lack of clear antecedent basis creates substantive scope ambiguity because the specification expressly distinguishes the two system levels.
Paragraph [0042] identifies vehicle fuel cell system 20 as the overall system comprising energy dissipating resistor 40 and control unit 50. Paragraph [0044] then separately provides:
“the vehicle fuel cell system 20 may further comprise a fuel cell system 30.”
Thus, the specification identifies vehicle fuel cell system 20 and fuel cell system 30 as distinct levels of the disclosed architecture.
Paragraph [0047] further identifies compressor 60 as being arranged in connection with fuel cell system 30 and as providing compressed air to fuel cell system 30.
Consequently, the claim language does not establish whether the recitations “the fuel cell system” in Claim 5 refer to:
the previously recited vehicle fuel cell system inherited from Claim 1; or
a separate internal fuel cell system, such as fuel cell system 30 described in the specification.
This distinction affects the structural and functional relationship imposed by the claim because the compressor's connection and air-supply requirements differ depending upon which system is intended.
MPEP § 2173.05(e) provides that lack of antecedent basis supports a § 112(b) rejection when the absence of a clear referent makes the claim scope indeterminate; Form Paragraph 7.34.05 is reserved for such situations.
Accordingly, Claim 5 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Regarding Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites:
“The method according to claim 15, the method further comprising: controlling a status of a power of the fuel cell system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.”
The recitation:
“the fuel cell system”
lacks clear antecedent basis and renders uncertain the particular system whose power status is being controlled.
Claim 17 depends from Claim 15, which depends from Claim 11. Claim 11 introduces:
“a vehicle fuel cell system comprising a control unit”
and Claim 15 further requires active cooling of the resistor by:
“a cooling system.”
Neither Claim 11 nor Claim 15 separately introduces “a fuel cell system.” Nevertheless, Claim 17 requires controlling the power status of “the fuel cell system.”
The specification expressly distinguishes the relevant structures. Paragraph [0042] identifies the overall vehicle fuel cell system 20, whereas paragraph [0044] states that vehicle fuel cell system 20 may separately comprise fuel cell system 30.
Paragraph [0048] further demonstrates that fuel cell system 30 has its own power state. The paragraph states that control unit 50 may control how much power is supplied to cooling system 70 and may separately control how much power is supplied to fuel cell system 30 prior to actively cooling resistor 40.
Thus, the claim does not establish whether “the fuel cell system” whose power is controlled refers to:
the overall vehicle fuel cell system recited in Claim 11; or
the distinct internal fuel cell system described by the specification.
Because these are separately identified structures and the identity of the system whose power state must be controlled affects the scope of the claimed method, the ambiguity is not merely grammatical.
Accordingly, the antecedent ambiguity prevents the metes and bounds of Claim 17 from being determined with sufficient clarity, and Claim 17 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites:
“The method according to claim 10, wherein the step of detecting an upcoming brake event of the vehicle, by the control unit, comprises detecting the upcoming event based on received inputs, by various sensors.”
Claim 18 expressly refers to:
“The method according to claim 10”
and:
“the step of detecting an upcoming brake event…”
However, Claim 10 does not recite a method. Claim 10 instead recites:
“A heavy-duty fuel cell electric vehicle comprising a vehicle fuel cell system…”
and subsequently recites apparatus limitations requiring a control unit “configured to detect,” “configured to predict,” and “configured to actively cool.”
Claim 10 therefore does not provide antecedent subject matter for either:
“The method according to claim 10”
or:
“the step of detecting.”
Although reference to limitations of another claim is not inherently improper, the MPEP provides that a § 112(b) rejection is appropriate where the manner in which another claim is referenced creates confusion as to what subject matter is actually being claimed.
Here, Claim 18 leaves unresolved whether Applicant intends to claim:
a method of operating the heavy-duty fuel-cell electric vehicle of Claim 10;
a method corresponding to the functions for which the control unit of Claim 10 is configured;
the method separately recited in Claim 11; or
some other method.
Similarly, Claim 10 contains no previously recited “step of detecting” to which the definite expression “the step” in Claim 18 can refer. Claim 10 instead defines the control unit structurally by its configured capability.
The resulting claim language therefore does not provide a sufficiently clear boundary between the apparatus subject matter incorporated from Claim 10 and the method subject matter affirmatively recited in Claim 18.
Accordingly, Claim 18 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
CLAIM REJECTION — 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Regarding Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form.
Under § 112(d), a claim presented in dependent form must refer to a previously set forth claim, incorporate the limitations of that claim, and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. The governing test is whether the dependent claim includes every limitation of the base claim and then further limits that subject matter. MPEP § 608.01(n). The fact that two claims fall within different statutory classes is not, by itself, determinative; the inquiry is whether the resulting dependent claim actually further limits the subject matter of the base claim.
Claim 18 recites:
“The method according to claim 10, wherein the step of detecting an upcoming brake event of the vehicle, by the control unit, comprises detecting the upcoming event based on received inputs, by various sensors.”
Claim 10, however, claims:
“A heavy-duty fuel cell electric vehicle comprising a vehicle fuel cell system…”
and thereafter recites structural and functional limitations of that vehicle fuel-cell system and its control unit.
Claim 18 does not recite itself as, for example, a method of operating or of using the heavy-duty fuel-cell electric vehicle of Claim 10. Instead, it characterizes the subject matter of Claim 10 itself as:
“The method according to claim 10”
even though Claim 10 sets forth no method.
Claim 18 further states:
“wherein the step of detecting…”
even though Claim 10 contains no method step of detecting to be further limited. Claim 10 instead requires an apparatus having a control unit configured to detect the upcoming brake event.
The defect is therefore not based merely upon a change in statutory class. Rather, the form of Claim 18 does not establish how the newly recited method and method step further limit the heavy-duty fuel-cell electric vehicle subject matter actually claimed in Claim 10.
Accordingly, Claim 18 fails to express a proper dependent relationship in which the subject matter of Claim 10 is retained and further limited in the manner required by § 112(d).
MPEP § 608.01(n) instructs that a claim failing to satisfy the requirements for proper dependency is to be rejected, rather than merely objected to, and identifies Form Paragraphs 7.36 and 7.36.01 for such a rejection.
Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form.
Applicant may overcome the rejection by amending the claim to establish a proper dependency relationship, rewriting the subject matter in independent form, or otherwise demonstrating compliance with § 112(d).
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.
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.
The rejections are set forth in the Office Action as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Audhav (US 2022/0305918 A1) in view of Schmitz (US 4,952,856).
Claims 2, 6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Audhav in view of Schmitz, and further in view of Jung (KR 10-0862474 B1).
Claims 4, 7, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Audhav in view of Schmitz, further in view of Jung, and further in view of Kazuno (US 2013/0065090 A1).
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Audhav in view of Schmitz, and further in view of Kazuno.
Regarding Claim 1
Disclosure by Audhav
A vehicle fuel cell system comprising
Audhav discloses “an electrically propelled vehicle comprising a fuel cell system” and further discloses that the vehicle is arranged to receive electric power from the fuel cell system. Audhav, [0038]–[0039].
Audhav therefore discloses a vehicle incorporating a fuel cell system.
an energy dissipating resistor arranged in connection with a control unit,
Audhav discloses that “the control unit 114 is preferably connected to the electric machine 102 and the electrical brake resistor arrangement 108” and that the control unit can control operation of those components. Audhav, [0057].
Audhav's electrical brake resistor arrangement receives electrical energy and dissipates the energy as heat and therefore corresponds to the claimed energy dissipating resistor.
wherein the control unit is configured to detect an upcoming brake event by the vehicle within a time period,
Audhav discloses that “the control unit may receive a signal indicative of an upcoming downhill slope where the vehicle will need to use the battery for braking and energy recuperation.” Audhav, [0062].
Audhav further discloses an “upcoming driving position for the vehicle” and performs control “before the vehicle arrives at the upcoming driving position.” Audhav, [0024].
Audhav therefore expressly detects in advance a future driving condition at which braking will be required. Because the future braking condition occurs after detection and before the vehicle reaches the identified upcoming position, implementing the finite prediction horizon as a corresponding time period would have been a predictable implementation of Audhav's controller.
and wherein the control unit is configured to actively cool the resistor,
Audhav discloses that “the electrical brake resistor arrangement may be an air cooled electrical brake resistor” and that the resistor “is thus cooled by the air it receives from the air flow producing unit.” Audhav, [0017].
Audhav further discloses that control unit 114 controls the electric machine to energize the brake compressor for producing compressed airflow to electrical brake resistor arrangement 108. Audhav, [0063].
in preparation for the upcoming brake event,
Audhav discloses that, “before the vehicle arrives at the upcoming driving position,” the control unit operates the airflow-producing unit to provide airflow to the electrical brake resistor arrangement. Audhav, [0024].
When considered together with Audhav's express disclosure of an upcoming downhill condition where braking will be required, providing resistor-cooling airflow before the vehicle reaches that future condition renders obvious actively cooling the resistor in preparation for the upcoming brake event.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav
wherein the control unit is configured to predict a temperature of the resistor at an onset of the upcoming brake event,
if the predicted temperature of the resistor at the onset of the upcoming brake event fails to satisfy a temperature acceptance criterion.
Disclosure by Schmitz
wherein the control unit is configured to predict a temperature of the resistor at an onset of the upcoming brake event,
Schmitz discloses a temperature prediction algorithm that calculates the predicted temperature of each resistor grid section. Schmitz further discloses that the temperature is predicted periodically after a selected increment of time and that the temperature calculated at the beginning of an interval predicts the resistor temperature at the end of that interval. Schmitz, col. 2, ll. 59–68; col. 3, ll. 1–4.
Schmitz defines Tn as the new predicted temperature, To as the existing resistor temperature, Rc as the cooling rate, Rh as the heating rate, and DT as the time interval. Schmitz, col. 3, ll. 5–17.
Schmitz does not independently disclose an upcoming brake event. Audhav supplies the anticipated future braking condition, while Schmitz supplies a known controller technique for predicting resistor temperature at a selected future endpoint. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the anticipated onset of Audhav's detected braking condition as the relevant future endpoint because that is the point at which the resistor's braking-energy dissipation demand will begin.
if the predicted temperature of the resistor at the onset of the upcoming brake event fails to satisfy a temperature acceptance criterion.
Schmitz discloses that “[a] threshold temperature, such as 800° C. can be set in the microprocessor” and that, when a calculated resistor temperature corresponds to the threshold, the microprocessor generates an actuating signal. Schmitz, col. 5, ll. 1–8.
Schmitz further discloses producing an actuating signal when the predicted temperature of the resistor for a time interval corresponds to a threshold temperature. Schmitz, col. 2, ll. 5–20.
Schmitz therefore discloses comparing a predicted future resistor temperature against a predetermined thermal acceptance threshold. In the Audhav-Schmitz combination, applying Schmitz's threshold comparison to the resistor temperature predicted for Audhav's anticipated braking onset and invoking Audhav's active cooling when the predicted temperature does not provide acceptable thermal margin would have been a predictable use of the known thermal-protection technique.
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to incorporate Schmitz's future resistor-temperature prediction and temperature-threshold comparison into Audhav's predictive braking controller and use Audhav's anticipated braking onset as the operationally relevant future prediction endpoint. Audhav already detects a future condition requiring braking, provides controlled cooling of its brake resistor, and performs control before reaching the future condition, while Schmitz provides a known quantitative technique for predicting the resistor's future thermal state and determining whether that state reaches an unacceptable threshold. The combination would predictably enable the controller to determine before braking whether adequate resistor thermal margin will exist and to employ Audhav's active cooling when additional thermal margin is required.
Regarding Claim 2
Disclosure by Audhav
The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1,
The subject matter of Claim 1 is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz as set forth above.
wherein control unit is configured to detect the upcoming brake by the vehicle by looking ahead a predetermined time period,
Audhav discloses detecting an upcoming downhill condition requiring braking and further discloses predictive control relative to an upcoming driving position before the vehicle reaches that position. Audhav, [0024], [0062].
Audhav therefore establishes an advance look-ahead horizon. Because the vehicle necessarily traverses the distance to the identified upcoming position over a finite time interval, implementing that future-position horizon as a corresponding predetermined time period would have been a predictable implementation of Audhav's predictive controller.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav
wherein the predetermined time period corresponds to a time required to actively cool the resistor to a nominal temperature.
Schmitz does not independently disclose the complete remaining limitation. However, Schmitz discloses the thermal-rate relationship used to determine the required cooling duration.
Schmitz defines Rc as the resistor cooling rate in degrees per second and DT as the applicable elapsed time interval. Schmitz, col. 3, ll. 5–17.
Schmitz further discloses empirically determined resistor cooling rates. Schmitz, col. 3, ll. 54–68.
Schmitz discloses cooling-rate values as a function of resistor temperature and determining an applicable cooling rate by interpolation according to the existing resistor temperature. Schmitz, col. 4, ll. 1–25.
Schmitz's exemplary 0.25-second calculation increment is not the claimed vehicle look-ahead period. Rather, Schmitz provides the known quantitative relationship between resistor temperature, resistor cooling rate, and elapsed cooling time from which a person of ordinary skill in the art could calculate or estimate the aggregate time required to lower the resistor from an initial temperature to a selected target temperature.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav and Schmitz
wherein the predetermined time period corresponds to a time required to actively cool the resistor to a nominal temperature.
Disclosure by Jung
wherein the predetermined time period corresponds to a time required to actively cool the resistor to a nominal temperature.
Jung discloses that active cooling continues until “the temperature of the braking resistor 22 is lowered to the normal range,” at which point the magnetic valve is closed and the water pump and thermoelectric device are turned off. Jung, p. 9.
Jung therefore supplies a normal operating thermal target for the braking resistor. A normal operating temperature or temperature range constitutes a nominal thermal condition. Combining Jung's target temperature with Schmitz's known temperature-dependent cooling-rate relationship enables determination of the aggregate time required to cool the resistor to the nominal state. Audhav supplies the advance predictive horizon. It therefore would have been obvious to establish Audhav's predetermined look-ahead period according to the time required to actively cool the resistor to Jung's normal or nominal thermal condition.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung before them, to establish Audhav's advance braking look-ahead period according to the cooling duration determined using Schmitz's known temperature-dependent resistor cooling-rate information and Jung's normal operating resistor temperature as the cooling target. Doing so would predictably provide sufficient advance time for the resistor to reach its nominal thermal state before the anticipated braking demand.
Regarding Claim 3
Disclosure by Audhav
The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1,
Claim 1 is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz.
wherein the control unit is configured to detect the upcoming brake by the vehicle within the time period,
Audhav discloses advance detection of an upcoming downhill condition at which the vehicle will need braking and energy recuperation. Audhav, [0062].
the time period corresponding to a distance window.
Audhav discloses predictive control relative to an “upcoming driving position” before the vehicle reaches that position. Audhav, [0024].
The spatial separation between the vehicle's current position and Audhav's identified upcoming position constitutes a distance look-ahead window. The corresponding travel interval through that distance window predictably provides the claimed time period.
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to implement the predictive braking control of Claim 1 using the distance between the vehicle's present position and Audhav's identified future braking-related position as the distance window and the corresponding travel interval as the claimed time period.
Regarding Claim 4
Disclosure by Audhav
The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1,
Claim 1 is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz.
wherein the system further comprises a fuel cell system,
Audhav discloses that braking system 100 is incorporated in fuel cell system 200 and that fuel cell system 200 includes both the braking system and fuel cell stack arrangement 202. Audhav, [0067].
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav
wherein the temperature acceptance criterion corresponds to a ramp down time of the fuel cell system.
Schmitz does not expressly disclose the complete remaining limitation. Schmitz discloses the underlying resistor temperature criterion.
Schmitz discloses a predetermined resistor-temperature threshold against which the calculated predicted resistor temperature is evaluated. Schmitz, col. 5, ll. 1–8.
Schmitz therefore supplies the known concept of a predicted resistor-temperature acceptance criterion but does not disclose making that criterion correspond to a fuel-cell ramp-down time.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav and Schmitz
wherein the temperature acceptance criterion corresponds to a ramp down time of the fuel cell system.
Jung does not expressly disclose the complete remaining limitation. Jung nevertheless supplies the relevant thermal relationship between the fuel-cell cooling system and the braking resistor.
Jung discloses that fuel cell stack 11 is cooled through a coolant and heat-exchanger circuit and that coolant thereafter enters braking resistor 22 to cool the braking resistor. Jung, p. 6.
Jung further discloses that resistor cooling is limited because the coolant cools the braking resistor after heat exchange associated with the fuel-cell cooling system. Jung, p. 7.
Jung therefore establishes that the thermal condition associated with fuel-cell cooling affects the cooling capability available to the braking resistor. Jung does not, however, expressly tie a resistor-temperature criterion to fuel-cell ramp-down duration.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung
wherein the temperature acceptance criterion corresponds to a ramp down time of the fuel cell system.
Disclosure by Kazuno
wherein the temperature acceptance criterion corresponds to a ramp down time of the fuel cell system.
Kazuno discloses decreasing fuel-cell electrical current and decreasing the power-generation electric power of FC stack 40 to a target power during regenerative operation. Kazuno, [0173]–[0175].
Kazuno further discloses a time-dependent transition beginning at time t21, when vehicle deceleration and regenerative operation commence, after which control decreases FC electric power Pfc. Kazuno, [0190]–[0193].
Audhav additionally discloses system optimization based on the operating status of the cooling system, brake compressor, and electrical brake resistor in order to prevent overheating. Audhav, [0065].
Kazuno does not expressly disclose that a braking-resistor temperature criterion is tied to fuel-cell ramp-down time. However, Schmitz supplies a predicted resistor-temperature acceptance criterion; Jung establishes a thermal interaction between fuel-cell-system cooling and braking-resistor cooling; Audhav supplies predictive system-level optimization based upon thermal-system operating conditions; and Kazuno supplies a known time-dependent fuel-cell-power transition. A person of ordinary skill coordinating these known thermal and power-management functions would have found it predictable to establish the acceptable starting thermal state of the resistor according to the expected duration of the fuel-cell power transition because that duration affects the period over which the combined thermal-management system must accommodate the fuel-cell operating load while retaining adequate resistor thermal margin.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno before them, to configure Schmitz's predicted resistor-temperature acceptance criterion within Audhav's predictive system-level controller according to the expected duration of Kazuno's fuel-cell power-reduction transition, where Jung establishes that fuel-cell thermal loading affects the cooling capability associated with the braking resistor. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the duration of the fuel-cell power transition affects the duration of the associated thermal-management demand and therefore the thermal margin advantageously provided at the braking resistor before the braking event.
Regarding Claim 5
Disclosure by Audhav
The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1,
Claim 1 is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz.
wherein the system further comprises a compressor arranged in connection with the fuel cell system and configured to provide air to the fuel cell system,
Audhav discloses a fuel-cell airflow-producing unit connected to the fuel-cell air inlet conduit upstream of the fuel-cell stack and expressly states that the unit may be a fuel-cell compressor. Audhav, [0032]–[0034].
Audhav further discloses that compressed air from fuel-cell compressor 208 is delivered into fuel-cell stack arrangement 202 where the air is used in the electrochemical reaction. Audhav, [0068].
wherein the control unit is configured to actively cool the resistor, in preparation for the upcoming brake event, by the compressor.
Audhav discloses that the electrical brake resistor is cooled by airflow received from the airflow-producing unit. Audhav, [0017].
Audhav further discloses supplying air from the fuel-cell airflow-producing unit to the electrical brake resistor through a controller-operated valve and expressly states that the fuel-cell airflow-producing unit may be used as the airflow-producing unit of the braking system. Audhav, [0035]–[0036].
Audhav performs the airflow operation before the vehicle reaches the upcoming driving position. Audhav, [0024].
Accordingly, operating Audhav's disclosed compressor to provide resistor-cooling airflow during the predictive pre-braking interval renders the complete limitation obvious.
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to use Audhav's expressly disclosed fuel-cell compressor to provide active resistor cooling in the predictive thermal-control system of Claim 1 whenever Schmitz's predicted future resistor temperature indicates insufficient thermal margin.
Regarding Claim 6
Disclosure by Audhav
The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1,
Claim 1 is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz.
Audhav discloses vehicle cooling system 105 and expressly contemplates a liquid-cooled brake resistor receiving liquid cooling from the vehicle cooling system. Audhav, [0017], [0053].
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav
wherein the system further comprises a cooling system arranged in connection with a fuel cell system and configured to cool down the fuel cell system,
wherein the control unit is configured to actively cool the resistor, in preparation for the upcoming brake event, by the cooling system.
Schmitz, relied upon for the parent Claim 1 combination, does not additionally disclose the remaining fuel-cell cooling-system limitations.
Disclosure by Jung
wherein the system further comprises a cooling system arranged in connection with a fuel cell system and configured to cool down the fuel cell system,
Jung discloses that fuel cell stack 11 is cooled by coolant circulated through heat exchanger 20 by water pump 12 and returned to the fuel cell stack to cool the stack. Jung, p. 6.
wherein the control unit is configured to actively cool the resistor, in preparation for the upcoming brake event, by the cooling system.
Jung discloses that coolant associated with the fuel-cell cooling architecture passes to braking resistor 22 to cool the braking resistor. Jung, p. 6.
Jung further discloses ECU-controlled operation of water pump 43, magnetic valve 44, and thermoelectric element 49 to actively cool the braking resistor. Jung, p. 9.
Jung supplies a controllable cooling architecture capable of cooling the fuel-cell system and the braking resistor. Audhav supplies the predictive pre-braking timing. Applying Jung's known cooling mechanism during Audhav's advance preparation interval would have been a predictable use of the known cooling architecture.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung before them, to employ Jung's known fuel-cell/braking-resistor cooling architecture as an active cooling mechanism in Audhav's predictive braking system, particularly because Audhav itself expressly contemplates liquid cooling of the brake resistor. When Schmitz's predicted future resistor temperature indicates inadequate thermal margin, operating Jung's cooling system during Audhav's advance preparation interval would predictably lower the resistor temperature before braking begins.
Regarding Claim 7
Disclosure by Audhav
The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 6,
Claim 6 is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz and Jung.
Audhav discloses that control unit 114 receives a current operational status of external systems including the cooling system and thereafter performs system-level control and optimization. Audhav, [0065].
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav
wherein the control unit is configured to control a status of a power of the cooling system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Schmitz does not additionally disclose the remaining limitation.
Jung discloses controller control of powered cooling-system components but does not independently establish the complete claimed temporal sequence.
Jung discloses that ECU 47 drives water pump 43, opens magnetic valve 44, and applies current to thermoelectric element 49. Jung, p. 9.
Jung further discloses turning the powered cooling components off when the braking resistor returns to the normal temperature range. Jung, p. 9.
Jung therefore supplies controller-controlled powered and unpowered operating states of the cooling system but does not expressly establish that the power status is controlled prior to the active resistor-cooling operation.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung
wherein the control unit is configured to control a status of a power of the cooling system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Disclosure by Kazuno
wherein the control unit is configured to control a status of a power of the cooling system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Kazuno discloses an ECU control sequence in which the FC-system load is calculated, energy management is performed, and peripheral devices including water pump 80 are thereafter controlled. Kazuno, [0092]–[0094].
Kazuno further discloses reading the current operating condition of water pump 80 and calculating the electrical power consumed by the auxiliary devices according to their present operating conditions. Kazuno, [0098]–[0100].
Audhav already obtains the cooling-system operating condition as part of predictive system optimization; Jung supplies selectively powered resistor-cooling hardware; and Kazuno supplies a known ECU routine for evaluating and controlling the operating/power state of the cooling-system water pump. It therefore would have been obvious to establish the required cooling-system power state through the known system-management routine before subsequently commanding the active pre-braking resistor-cooling operation so that the cooling system is in the required operating condition when active cooling begins.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno before them, to evaluate and establish the powered operating state of Jung's cooling system using Kazuno's known ECU system-management routine before initiating the predictive active resistor-cooling operation of the Audhav-Schmitz-Jung combination, thereby ensuring that the required cooling capacity is available when active resistor cooling begins.
Regarding Claim 8
Disclosure by Audhav
The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 6,
Claim 6 is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz and Jung.
Audhav discloses system-level optimization based upon existing operating conditions but does not expressly disclose the complete added fuel-cell-power timing limitation. Audhav, [0065].
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav
wherein the control unit is configured to control a status of a power of the fuel cell system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Schmitz does not additionally disclose the remaining limitation.
Jung supplies the fuel-cell/braking-resistor cooling architecture incorporated through Claim 6 but does not disclose controlling fuel-cell electrical power.
Disclosure by Kazuno
wherein the control unit is configured to control a status of a power of the fuel cell system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Kazuno discloses recurring FC-system energy management and FC power-generation control. Kazuno, [0092]–[0094].
Kazuno further discloses decreasing FC electrical current and decreasing the power-generation electric power of FC stack 40. Kazuno, [0175].
Kazuno therefore supplies controller control of the fuel-cell-system power state. Audhav separately discloses obtaining operating conditions and performing predictive system optimization before the upcoming braking condition. In the combined controller, establishing or adjusting the fuel-cell power state through Kazuno's existing FC energy-management routine before subsequently commanding the separate active pre-braking resistor-cooling operation would have been a predictable sequencing of known control functions. Establishing the fuel-cell power condition beforehand predictably coordinates the fuel-cell operating load with the subsequent resistor-cooling demand.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno before them, to use Kazuno's known fuel-cell power-management function to establish or adjust the fuel-cell-system power state before subsequently initiating the active resistor-cooling operation of the Audhav-Schmitz-Jung combination, thereby predictably coordinating the controllable fuel-cell load with the subsequent resistor-cooling demand.
Regarding Claim 9
Disclosure by Audhav
The vehicle fuel cell system according to claim 1,
Claim 1 is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz.
wherein the control unit is configured to detect the upcoming brake event by the vehicle within a time period based on any of or any combination of received inputs,
Audhav discloses vehicle control units arranged to detect upcoming traffic situations and road topology and transmit that information to control unit 114 for decision making. Audhav, [0058].
Audhav further expressly discloses receiving a signal identifying an upcoming downhill slope where braking will be required. Audhav, [0062].
the inputs being related to a vehicle weight, vehicle speed, road altitude, a road inclination, global positioning system, route, and current temperature of the resistor.
Audhav expressly employs road-topology and upcoming downhill information for identifying the future braking condition. Audhav, [0058], [0062].
The claim recites “any of or any combination of” the listed input categories and therefore does not require every listed input simultaneously. Audhav's upcoming downhill and road-topology information corresponds to the alternatively recited road-altitude/road-inclination class of inputs.
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to perform the predictive resistor-temperature control of Claim 1 based upon Audhav's received road-topology and upcoming-downhill information because those inputs directly identify a future condition requiring braking and energy recuperation.
Regarding Claim 10
Disclosure by Audhav
A heavy-duty fuel cell electric vehicle comprising a vehicle fuel cell system,
Audhav's detailed embodiment discloses “a vehicle 10 in the form of a truck” whose electric traction motor receives electric power from a battery or directly from a fuel-cell system. Audhav, [0052].
Audhav further identifies fuel-cell electric propulsion as particularly applicable to “trucks and other heavy duty vehicles.” Audhav, [0003].
the vehicle fuel cell system comprising an energy dissipating resistor arranged in connection with a control unit,
Audhav discloses that control unit 114 is connected to and controls electrical brake resistor arrangement 108. Audhav, [0057].
wherein the control unit is configured to detect an upcoming brake event by the vehicle within a time period,
Audhav discloses an upcoming downhill condition requiring braking and performs advance control before reaching an upcoming driving position. Audhav, [0024], [0062].
and wherein the control unit is configured to actively cool the resistor, in preparation for the upcoming brake event,
Audhav discloses an air-cooled brake resistor cooled by controlled airflow and performs the airflow operation before reaching the upcoming driving position. Audhav, [0017], [0024].
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav
wherein the control unit is configured to predict a temperature of the resistor at an onset of the upcoming brake event,
if the predicted temperature of the resistor at the onset of the upcoming brake event fails to satisfy a temperature acceptance criterion.
Disclosure by Schmitz
wherein the control unit is configured to predict a temperature of the resistor at an onset of the upcoming brake event,
Schmitz discloses prediction of resistor temperature at the end of a selected future time interval. Schmitz, col. 2, ll. 59–68; col. 3, ll. 1–17.
Audhav supplies the anticipated braking onset. Using that anticipated event as the relevant future endpoint for Schmitz's temperature prediction would have been obvious for the reasons stated with respect to Claim 1.
if the predicted temperature of the resistor at the onset of the upcoming brake event fails to satisfy a temperature acceptance criterion.
Schmitz discloses comparing calculated future resistor temperature with a threshold such as 800°C and generating an actuating signal when the calculated temperature corresponds to that threshold. Schmitz, col. 5, ll. 1–8.
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to implement Schmitz's future resistor-temperature prediction and threshold comparison in Audhav's disclosed heavy-duty fuel-cell-electric vehicle and use the anticipated braking onset as the relevant prediction endpoint, thereby allowing Audhav's active pre-braking cooling to be initiated when the predicted resistor temperature lacks sufficient thermal margin.
Regarding Claim 11
Teaching by Audhav
A method for actively cooling an energy dissipating resistor in a vehicle fuel cell system comprising a control unit,
Audhav teaches a fuel-cell system containing the braking system, a control unit connected with the electrical brake resistor, and controlled airflow that cools the electrical brake resistor. Audhav, [0017], [0057], [0067].
the method comprising the steps of:
Audhav's controller performs the operational acts mapped below and therefore teaches performing the recited method steps.
detecting an upcoming brake event of the vehicle, by the control unit, within a time period,
Audhav teaches advance detection of an upcoming downhill condition at which braking and energy recuperation will be required. Audhav, [0062].
actively cooling the resistor, in preparation for the upcoming brake event,
Audhav teaches cooling the resistor using controlled airflow and performing advance airflow control before reaching the upcoming driving position. Audhav, [0017], [0024].
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Audhav
predicting a temperature of the resistor at an onset of the upcoming brake event, by the control unit, and
if the predicted temperature of the resistor at the onset of the upcoming brake event fails to satisfy a temperature acceptance criterion.
Teaching by Schmitz
predicting a temperature of the resistor at an onset of the upcoming brake event, by the control unit, and
Schmitz teaches automatically calculating a predicted resistor temperature at a selected future endpoint. Schmitz, col. 2, ll. 59–68; col. 3, ll. 1–17.
Audhav teaches the anticipated future braking condition. It would have been obvious to use the anticipated onset of that braking condition as the future endpoint for Schmitz's known temperature-prediction calculation.
if the predicted temperature of the resistor at the onset of the upcoming brake event fails to satisfy a temperature acceptance criterion.
Schmitz teaches producing an actuating signal when predicted resistor temperature corresponds to a predetermined threshold temperature. Schmitz, col. 2, ll. 5–20; col. 5, ll. 1–8.
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to perform Schmitz's future resistor-temperature calculation and temperature-threshold comparison as part of Audhav's predictive controller method, using the anticipated braking onset as the future prediction endpoint and performing Audhav's active cooling when the predicted future resistor temperature lacks acceptable thermal margin.
Regarding Claim 12
Teaching by Audhav
The method according to claim 11,
Claim 11 is taught or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz.
wherein the step of detecting the upcoming brake event comprises looking ahead a predetermined time period,
Audhav teaches predictive control relative to an upcoming driving position before reaching that future position and further teaches advance detection of an upcoming downhill condition requiring braking. Audhav, [0024], [0062].
The future position establishes an advance predictive horizon that is predictably expressible as a corresponding predetermined travel-time period.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Audhav
wherein the predetermined time period corresponds to a time required to actively cool the resistor to a nominal temperature.
Schmitz does not independently teach the complete remaining limitation.
Schmitz teaches resistor cooling rate Rc in degrees per second and elapsed time DT. Schmitz, col. 3, ll. 5–17.
Schmitz further teaches temperature-dependent empirical resistor cooling rates and interpolation of the appropriate cooling rate according to resistor temperature. Schmitz, col. 3, ll. 54–68; col. 4, ll. 1–25.
Schmitz's exemplary 0.25-second computational interval is not the claimed look-ahead period. Schmitz instead supplies the thermal-rate relationship from which the aggregate cooling duration required to reach a selected target temperature can be calculated or estimated.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Audhav and Schmitz
wherein the predetermined time period corresponds to a time required to actively cool the resistor to a nominal temperature.
Teaching by Jung
wherein the predetermined time period corresponds to a time required to actively cool the resistor to a nominal temperature.
Jung teaches continuing active cooling until braking-resistor temperature reaches the “normal range,” after which the powered cooling components are turned off. Jung, p. 9.
Jung supplies the normal or nominal thermal target. Using Schmitz's temperature-dependent cooling-rate information to determine the time necessary to reach that target and using that duration to establish Audhav's predictive look-ahead period renders the complete limitation obvious.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung before them, to determine the elapsed cooling time necessary to reduce the resistor to Jung's normal operating thermal condition using Schmitz's known cooling-rate relationship and use that required cooling duration to establish Audhav's predetermined advance braking look-ahead period.
Regarding Claim 13
Teaching by Audhav
The method according to claim 11,
Claim 11 is taught or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz.
wherein the step of detecting the upcoming brake event comprises detecting the upcoming brake by the vehicle within the time period,
Audhav teaches advance detection of an upcoming downhill driving condition requiring vehicle braking. Audhav, [0062].
the time period corresponding to a distance window.
Audhav bases its predictive control on an upcoming driving position before the vehicle reaches that position. Audhav, [0024].
The spatial separation between the current vehicle position and Audhav's upcoming driving position provides the claimed distance window, while the corresponding travel interval provides the claimed time period.
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to implement the Claim 11 detection method using the distance to Audhav's identified future braking-related location as the predictive distance window and the corresponding travel duration as the detection time period.
Regarding Claim 14
Teaching by Audhav
The method according to claim 11,
Claim 11 is taught or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz.
wherein the step of actively cooling the resistor comprises actively cooling the resistor, in preparation for the upcoming brake event, by a compressor.
Audhav teaches an airflow-producing unit that may be a compressor and positions electrical brake resistor arrangement 108 downstream of the compressor so that the resistor receives the compressor airflow. Audhav, [0054]–[0055].
Audhav expressly teaches that the resistor is cooled by air received from the airflow-producing unit. Audhav, [0017].
Audhav performs its airflow operation before the vehicle reaches the upcoming driving position. Audhav, [0024].
Audhav therefore teaches, or at minimum renders obvious, actively cooling the resistor by compressor-generated airflow in preparation for the anticipated braking event.
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to perform the predictive active-cooling method of Claim 11 using Audhav's expressly disclosed compressor-generated airflow whenever the resistor temperature predicted according to Schmitz indicates inadequate thermal margin.
Regarding Claim 15
Teaching by Audhav
The method according to claim 11,
Claim 11 is taught or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz.
Audhav teaches advance resistor cooling and expressly contemplates a liquid-cooled brake resistor receiving liquid cooling from the vehicle cooling system. Audhav, [0017], [0024].
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Audhav
wherein the step of actively cooling the resistor comprises actively cooling the resistor, in preparation for the upcoming brake event, by a cooling system.
Schmitz does not additionally teach the remaining cooling-system implementation.
Teaching by Jung
wherein the step of actively cooling the resistor comprises actively cooling the resistor, in preparation for the upcoming brake event, by a cooling system.
Jung teaches ECU-controlled circulation of coolant through braking-resistor cooling hardware using water pump 43, magnetic valve 44, and cooling module 45. Jung, pp. 8–9.
Jung expressly teaches active braking-resistor cooling by a controlled cooling system. Audhav supplies the predictive pre-braking timing. Applying Jung's known cooling system during Audhav's advance preparation interval therefore renders the complete method limitation obvious.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung before them, to perform the predictive pre-braking active resistor cooling of Claim 11 using Jung's ECU-controlled liquid-cooling system whenever the future resistor temperature predicted according to Schmitz indicates inadequate thermal margin.
Regarding Claim 16
Teaching by Audhav
The method according to claim 15,
Claim 15 is taught or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz and Jung.
the method further comprising:
The following controller operation constitutes an additional step beyond the Claim 15 method.
Audhav teaches receiving the current operational status of the cooling system before subsequently performing system-level optimization. Audhav, [0065].
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Audhav
controlling a status of a power of a cooling system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Schmitz does not additionally teach the remaining limitation.
Jung teaches controller control of the powered cooling equipment but does not independently establish the complete claimed temporal sequence.
Jung teaches that ECU 47 drives water pump 43, applies electrical current to thermoelectric element 49, and subsequently turns the powered components off after the resistor returns to the normal range. Jung, p. 9.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung
controlling a status of a power of a cooling system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Teaching by Kazuno
controlling a status of a power of a cooling system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Kazuno teaches an ECU control sequence in which the FC-system load is calculated, energy management is performed, and peripheral devices including water pump 80 are thereafter controlled. Kazuno, [0092]–[0094].
Kazuno additionally teaches reading the water-pump operating condition and determining electrical power consumed by the auxiliary devices according to their current operating conditions. Kazuno, [0098]–[0100].
In the combined method, the cooling-system power/operating condition can predictably be determined and established through Kazuno's known ECU-management routine before the separate predictive resistor-cooling operation taught by Audhav and Jung is subsequently commanded.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno before them, to establish the powered operating state of Jung's cooling system through Kazuno's known ECU-management routine before commencing the predictive active resistor-cooling operation of the Audhav-Schmitz-Jung combination, thereby ensuring that the cooling system is in the required operating state when active resistor cooling begins.
Regarding Claim 17
Teaching by Audhav
The method according to claim 15,
Claim 15 is taught or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz and Jung.
the method further comprising:
The following controller operation constitutes an additional step beyond the Claim 15 method.
Audhav supplies predictive system-level optimization based on operating conditions but does not teach the complete added fuel-cell power-control limitation. Audhav, [0065].
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Audhav
controlling a status of a power of the fuel cell system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Schmitz does not additionally teach the remaining limitation.
Jung does not teach fuel-cell electrical-power control.
Teaching by Kazuno
controlling a status of a power of the fuel cell system, prior to actively cooling the resistor.
Kazuno teaches recurring FC-system energy management and FC power-generation control. Kazuno, [0092]–[0094].
Kazuno expressly teaches decreasing FC electrical current and the power-generation electric power of FC stack 40. Kazuno, [0175].
Kazuno therefore supplies the known operation of controlling fuel-cell-system power. Audhav separately initiates predictive resistor-system control in response to a future braking condition. In the combined controller, establishing or adjusting the fuel-cell power state through Kazuno's existing energy-management routine before subsequently commanding Audhav/Jung active resistor cooling would have been a predictable sequencing of known controller functions.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, Jung, and Kazuno before them, to establish or adjust the fuel-cell-system power state using Kazuno's known FC power-management routine before initiating the separate active resistor-cooling operation of the Audhav-Schmitz-Jung combination, thereby predictably coordinating the fuel-cell operating load with the subsequent resistor-cooling demand.
Regarding Claim 18
Teaching by Audhav
The method according to claim 10,
The operational subject matter of Claim 10 is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz as mapped above.
wherein the step of detecting an upcoming brake event of the vehicle, by the control unit,
Audhav teaches vehicle control units arranged to detect “an upcoming traffic situation, road topology, etc.” and transmit the information to control unit 114 for decision making. Audhav, [0058].
Audhav additionally teaches receipt of a signal indicating an upcoming downhill condition where braking will be required. Audhav, [0062].
comprises detecting the upcoming event based on received inputs,
Audhav teaches that information concerning the upcoming traffic condition and road topology is transmitted to control unit 114 for decision making. Audhav, [0058].
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Taught by Audhav
by various sensors.
Schmitz does not teach the remaining various-sensor implementation.
Jung teaches a braking-resistor temperature sensor but does not teach use of various sensors for detecting the upcoming vehicle event.
Teaching by Kazuno
by various sensors.
Kazuno teaches that ECU 24 executes its control using detection values obtained from “various sensors,” including cell-voltage, flow-rate, temperature, voltage, current, and SOC sensors. Kazuno, [0087].
Kazuno additionally identifies accelerator-opening, motor-rotation, and vehicle-velocity sensors among the various sensors. Kazuno, [0088].
Using Kazuno's known plurality of vehicle and fuel-cell-system sensors to provide Audhav's received predictive-control information would have been a predictable implementation of Audhav's information-based event-detection architecture.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, and Kazuno
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, and Kazuno before them, to obtain Audhav's predictive vehicle and system information using Kazuno's plurality of vehicle and fuel-cell-system sensors and use those received sensor values to detect and characterize an upcoming braking-related condition for the predictive resistor-temperature control established by Audhav and Schmitz.
Regarding Claim 19
Teaching by Audhav
A computer-implemented method for actively cooling an energy dissipating resistor in a vehicle fuel cell system,
Audhav teaches programmable control circuitry and discloses that the programmable processor may include “computer executable code that controls operation of the programmable device.” Audhav, [0022].
Executing Audhav's resistor-control operations using the disclosed programmable controller teaches computer implementation of the method.
comprising the steps of a method according to claim 11,
The complete Claim 11 method is taught or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz as mapped above.
the method configured to be performed by a processing circuitry of a control unit of the vehicle fuel cell system.
Audhav teaches that control unit 114 comprises processing circuitry including a microprocessor, microcontroller, programmable digital signal processor, or another programmable device. Audhav, [0058].
Audhav further teaches that controller functionality may be integrated with vehicle control units arranged to detect upcoming traffic situations and road topology. Audhav, [0058].
Audhav incorporates the braking system containing the control unit into fuel-cell system 200. Audhav, [0067].
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to implement the combined predictive resistor-cooling method of Claim 11 as computer-executed operations performed by Audhav's disclosed processing circuitry within the control unit of the vehicle fuel-cell system.
Regarding Claim 20
Disclosure by Audhav
A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry,
Audhav discloses programmable control circuitry containing “computer executable code that controls operation of the programmable device.” Audhav, [0022].
Audhav does not use the exact phrase “computer program product.” However, providing Audhav's expressly disclosed executable controller code as program code of a computer program product would have been a conventional and predictable software implementation of the disclosed programmable controller.
the method of claim 11.
The Claim 11 method is disclosed or rendered obvious through the combined operational teachings of Audhav and Schmitz.
Disclosure by Schmitz
Schmitz further supports programmed implementation of the thermal-prediction portion of the Claim 11 method.
Schmitz discloses that “the resistor temperature prediction algorithm as described above is programmed into microprocessor 10” and that the microprocessor is programmed with the data required to perform the algorithm. Schmitz, col. 4, ll. 37–54.
Schmitz further discloses periodically computing the predicted future resistor temperature and storing updated calculated temperatures in memory table 22. Schmitz, col. 4, ll. 55–65.
Thus, both Audhav and Schmitz employ programmable electronic controllers to execute their respective portions of the combined method.
Motivation to Combine Audhav and Schmitz
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav and Schmitz before them, to implement the combined Claim 11 predictive resistor-cooling method as executable program code for Audhav's programmable processing circuitry, including Schmitz's expressly programmed resistor-temperature prediction algorithm. Providing that executable code as a computer program product would have been a conventional software implementation yielding the predictable result of causing the processing circuitry to perform the combined controller operations.
Regarding Claim 21
Disclosure by Audhav
which when executed by the processing circuitry,
Audhav discloses computer-executable code that controls operation of its programmable processing device. Audhav, [0022].
cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 11.
The Claim 11 method is disclosed or rendered obvious by Audhav in view of Schmitz. Execution of instructions implementing those combined operations would predictably cause the processing circuitry to perform the Claim 11 method.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions,
Disclosure by Schmitz
Schmitz does not expressly disclose the complete remaining non-transitory-medium limitation.
Schmitz discloses that its resistor-temperature prediction algorithm is programmed into microprocessor 10 and that predicted resistor-temperature values are periodically calculated and stored. Schmitz, col. 4, ll. 37–65.
Schmitz therefore reinforces programmed processor and memory implementation but does not expressly identify the executable-instruction storage medium as non-transitory.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav and Schmitz
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions,
Jung does not provide a pertinent disclosure of executable instruction storage.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Audhav, Schmitz, and Jung
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions,
Disclosure by Kazuno
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions,
Kazuno expressly discloses that “[f]or implementing the control, programs stored in a memory (ROM) are executed.” Kazuno, [0087].
ROM constitutes persistent electronic storage rather than a transient propagated signal. Kazuno therefore discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable program instructions.
Motivation to Combine Audhav, Schmitz, and Kazuno
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Audhav, Schmitz, and Kazuno before them, to store the executable instructions implementing the Audhav-Schmitz predictive resistor-cooling method in ROM or comparable persistent non-transitory controller memory as expressly taught by Kazuno for a fuel-cell-vehicle ECU, thereby providing persistent instruction storage from which the processing circuitry can execute the combined Claim 11 method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights