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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed July 27, 2023 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-25 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miki (US 20060246177 A1).
In re Claim 1, Miki discloses hydrogen storage system (Fig. 8) for a fuel cell electric vehicle (See Fig. 7; [0063] and [0083]: configured as a device that is mounted on a fuel cell electric vehicle) (FCEV),
the system comprising:
a controller (340) in electronic communication (See [0067]) with an on tank valve (351) (OTV) associated with an OTV (351[1]) of a first tank (350[1]);
a pressure regulator pressure sensor (354) associated with a pressure regulator (355) in electronic communication with the controller (340),
the pressure regulator (355) being in fluid communication with at least
a fuel cell supply line (322),
wherein the pressure regulator pressure sensor (355) is configured to sense a pressure ([0092]) in the at least
the fuel cell supply line (See [0092]; 355),
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0085) in electronic communication with the controller (340), having instructions stored thereon ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) that, in response to execution by the controller (340), cause
the controller (340) to perform operations (See [0085]) comprising:
receiving, by the controller (340) and during a low fuel cell power demand condition ([0075]: driven by electric power supplied from a power storage device with the operation of the fuel cell 20 halted when there is a low load to the degree that the vehicle can be driven by electric power supplied from an electric power storage device) and during a time period when the vehicle is driving ([0067]: during drive mode and [0072]: controlling the output (the amount of electricity produced) of the fuel cell in this way makes it possible to insure the minimum required power for driving, without the vehicle stopping, i.e., while the vehicle is driving)
a first pressure ([0028]: ) from the pressure regulator pressure sensor (354) representing the fuel cell supply line (322),
commanding, by the controller (340), the OTV (351) to close for a predetermined time interval ([0069-0070]);
receiving, by the controller (340), a second pressure ([0092]: pressure after initial reduction of pressure) from the pressure regulator pressure sensor (355) representing at least one of the fuel cell supply line (322),
determining, by the controller (340), the absolute value of the difference between the first pressure and the second pressure ([0100]) to yield an absolute pressure difference (an absolute value difference is necessarily the result of calculating a pressure difference);
determining, by the controller (340), whether the absolute pressure difference is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0100]: it may be concluded that the supply pressure Pa has fallen when the absolute value of the temporal rate of reduction of the supply pressure Pa is greater than a specific threshold); and
in response to finding that the absolute pressure difference is greater than the predetermined threshold ([0100]), transmitting, by the controller (351), a stuck OTV fault ([0098]: if the supply pressure Pa has not dropped (Step S312), then the control unit 340 concludes that either there is a leak in the valve 351 of one of the hydrogen tanks 350, or that the valve 351 is stuck in the open position, and the control unit 340 performs a fault determination procedure; See also Fig. 9: S318).
In re Claim 3, Miki discloses wherein the hydrogen storage system (Fig. 8) further comprises the pressure regulator (355) in electronic communication with the controller (340).
In re Claim 4 and Claim 11, Miki discloses wherein the operations are commenced in response to the driving condition ([0067]: operations start during drive mode).
In re Claim 5 and Claim 12, Miki discloses wherein the commanding, by the controller (340), the OTV (351) to close occurs prior to the receiving ([0069-0070]) the first pressure ([0028]).
In re Claim 6 and Claim 14, Miki discloses wherein the instructions ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) further comprise waiting ([0075]), by the controller (340), after the commanding the OTV of the first tank (351[1]) to close and prior to the receiving the second pressure ([0092]: pressure after initial reduction of pressure), for the predetermined time interval ([0069-0070]).
In re Claim 7, Miki discloses further comprising a fueling valve (Fig. 1: B1) of the first tank (350 [1]), wherein the instructions ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) further comprise commanding, by the controller (340) and prior to the receiving the first pressure ([0028]), the OTV (351) to close.
In re Claim 8, Miki discloses wherein the instructions ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) further comprise:in response to finding that the absolute pressure difference is greater than the predetermined threshold initiating ([0098]), by the controller (340), a stuck OTV fault diagnostic process ([0098]).
In re Claim 9, Miki discloses An article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) in electronic communication with a controller (340), having instructions stored thereon ([0085]) that, in response to execution by the controller (340), cause the controller (340) to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the controller (340) and during a driving condition ([0067]: during drive mode) a first pressure ([0028]) from a pressure regulator pressure sensor (354) representing at a fuel cell supply line (322);
commanding, by the controller (340), an on tank valve (351) (OTV) to close for a predetermined time interval ([0069-0070]);
receiving, by the controller (340), a second pressure ([0092]: pressure after initial reduction of pressure) from the pressure regulator pressure sensor (355) representing at least one of the fuel cell supply line (322);
determining, by the controller (340), the absolute value of the difference between the first pressure and the second pressure ([0100]) to yield an absolute pressure difference (an absolute value difference is necessarily the result of calculating the absolute value of a pressure difference);
determining, by the controller (340), whether the absolute pressure difference is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0100]: it may be concluded that the supply pressure Pa has fallen when the absolute value of the temporal rate of reduction of the supply pressure Pa is greater than a specific threshold); and
in response to finding that the absolute pressure difference is greater than the predetermined threshold ([0100]), transmitting, by the controller (340), a stuck OTV fault ([0098]: if the supply pressure Pa has not dropped (Step S312), then the control unit 340 concludes that either there is a leak in the valve 351 of one of the hydrogen tanks 350, or that the valve 351 is stuck in the open position, and the control unit 340 performs a fault determination procedure; See also Fig. 9: S318).
In re Claim 13, Miki discloses wherein the instructions ([0085]: operations of each unit are controlled according to a control program stored in the ROM) further comprise waiting, by the controller (340), after commanding the first tank OTV (351[1]) and prior to receiving the first pressure ([0028]), for the predetermined time interval ([0069-0070]).
In re Claim 23, Miki discloses further comprising determining, by the controller , the existence of the low fuel cell power demand condition ([0075]: driven by electric power supplied from a power storage device with the operation of the fuel cell 20 halted when there is a low load to the degree that the vehicle can be driven by electric power supplied from an electric power storage device).
In re Claim 24, Miki discloses wherein the commanding, by the controller , the OTV to close occurs after determining , by the controller, the existence of the low fuel cell power demand condition ([0072]: a structure may be used wherein all of the tank valves VT1 through VT4 are closed, and the vehicle is stopped).
In re Claim 25, Miki discloses wherein the lower fuel cell power demand condition comprises a park preparation condition ([0072] and [0074]: a structure may be used wherein all of the tank valves VT1 through VT4 are closed, and the vehicle is stopped,).
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.
Claims 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki (US 20060246177 A1) in view of Cun (US 20190255952 A1).
In re Claim 2 and 10, Miki discloses wherein the controller (340) transmits the stuck OTV fault ([0098]).
However, Miki does not explicitly teach, a controller area network (CAN) bus.
On the other hand, Cun (Fig. 2) teaches ([0039]: a bus 216 (e.g., a controller Area Network (CAN)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Miki and to have modified them by a controller area network (CAN) bus as taught by Cun, in order to transmits control data from the various valve control units (See also Cun [0039]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Claims 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki (US 20060246177 A1) in view of Han (US 20230163331 A1).
In re Claim 21, Miki does not explicitly disclose wherein the low fuel cell power demand condition comprises a time period where power demand on the fuel cell is from 0.5% to 20% maximum fuel cell power output capacity.
However, Han teaches wherein the low fuel cell power demand condition comprises a time period ([0078]: change the operation mode of the fuel cell 230 to the low power mode at the time point) where power demand on the fuel cell is from 0.5% to 20% maximum fuel cell power output capacity ([0085]: The fuel cell controller 330 according to various embodiments of the present disclosure may allow the fuel cell 230 operate in a low output mode instead of the power generation on mode).
As the power demand on the fuel cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting percentage of the maximum fuel cell power output capacity, with operating efficiency both changing as power demand is changed, the power demand on the fuel cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed power demand on the fuel cell cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, power demand on the fuel cell the percentage of the maximum fuel cell power output capacity in the teachings of Miki in view of Han to obtain the desired balance between the power demand and the operation efficiency in a low power mode as taught by Han (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In re Claim 22, Modified Miki teaches further comprising determining, by the controller, the existence of the low fuel cell power demand condition (([0085]: the fuel cell controller 330 according to various embodiments of the present disclosure may allow the fuel cell 230 operate in a low output mode instead of the power generation on mode).
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of April 15, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant argues
On Page 7 ¶4 of the Remarks, Miki fails to anticipate amended independent claims 1 and 9 because Miki's drive-mode diagnostic requires the fuel cell to be entirely deactivated, representing zero power demand. See Miki [0075]: Miki explicitly discloses that when the intermittent operation start conditions are fulfilled, the vehicle reverts to using ONLY power from a battery. The control unit closes the tank valves and executes a "STOP GENERATING ELECTRICITY" command (Step S40). With the generation of electrical power from hydrogen halted, Miki performs a static hydrogen leak check. Because amended claim 1 recites that the fuel cell is operating at a "low fuel cell power demand condition" during the vehicle being driven (e.g., actively drawing hydrogen at 0.5% to 20% capacity, per Applicant's para. 0035), Miki's zero-power static leak check cannot anticipate claim 1 or claim 9. This is not persuasive.
Contrary to Applicant' s assertion that Miki's drive-mode diagnostic requires the fuel cell to be entirely deactivated, representing zero power demand, Miki indicates that the output of the fuel cell 20 is controlled based on the hydrogen tank with the lowest temperature, and power generation is started (Step S16). Specifically, with respect to the driving mode, the output (the amount of electricity produced) of the fuel cell in this way makes it possible to insure the minimum required power for driving, without the vehicle stopping. Therefore, the vehicle is operating a low power mode that still has the flow of electricity which is different from stopping to check for leaks.
Finally, it should be noted that applicant's amendments have changed the scope of the claimed invention, thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection. Namely, claim 21 requires the low fuel cell power demand condition comprises a time period where power demand on the fuel cell is from 0.5% to 20% maximum fuel cell power output capacity. In light of the above, the claims have been reconsidered, and the new grounds of rejection now incorporates teachings from Han to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights