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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “the present disclosure provides” can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs 73, 74, and 75, “system (134)” should read “system (102)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 12-15, 17, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhimani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12017592; hereinafter Bhimani).
Regarding claim 1, Bhimani teaches a hybrid power system (102) for a vehicle, the system (102) comprising: a processor (202); a memory (204) operatively coupled with the processor (202), wherein said memory (204) stores instructions which, when executed by the processor (202), cause the processor (202) to: (Bhimani: Col. 2, lines 17-19; i.e., a vehicle may include one or more power sources that may be used to generate/provide power to move the vehicle; Col. 18, lines 58-64; i.e., The example computing device 800 may include a processing device (e.g., a general purpose processor) … and a data storage device 818, which may communicate with each other via a bus 830; Col. 19, lines 26-28; i.e., data storage device 818 may include a computer-readable storage medium 828 on which may be stored one or more sets of powertrain system instructions 825)
receive one or more parameters associated with a vehicle through one or more sensors configured to the vehicle (Bhimani: Col. 5, lines 1-2; i.e., the perception system 220 may include one or more sensors devices; Col. 5, lines 22-33; i.e., the perception system 220 may generate perception data… the perception data may indicate the road conditions, weather conditions, and road type of where the vehicle 290 is travelling),
wherein the vehicle is powered by a primary source and a secondary source (Bhimani: Col. 6, lines 48-49; i.e., power source 110A is a battery and power sources 110Z is a fuel cell);
determine a condition associated with the vehicle based on the one or more parameters (Bhimani: Col. 9, lines 1-5; i.e., the perception data may be indicative of one or more scenarios, situations, circumstances, environments, etc., where the vehicle 290 is located. For example, perception data may indicate the conditions of the environment in which the vehicle 290 is located);
and in response to a determination that the primary source and the secondary source are functional, enable via an artificial intelligence (Al) engine, switching of power supplied through the primary source and the secondary source at one or more predetermined intervals based on the condition (Bhimani: Col. 6, lines 11-12; i.e., a health value for a power source may indicate a health and/or a condition of the power source; Col. 8, lines 31-33; i.e., the health values generated, determined, etc., by the health modules 250A through 250Z may also be provided as an input to the machine learning model; Col. 8, lines 49-52; i.e., the perception data may allow the machine learning model 206 to generate different power distributions based on different scenarios and/or different time frames/distances for the scenarios; Col. 17, lines 12-13; i.e., the powertrain controller may control the set of power sources based on the power distribution).
Regarding claim 2, Bhimani teaches the system according to claim 1. Bhimani further teaches wherein the primary source is a hydrogen powered fuel cell and the secondary source is a battery (Bhimani: Col. 6, lines 48-49; i.e., power source 110A is a battery and power sources 110Z is a fuel cell; Col. 12, lines 12-13; i.e., amount of fuel (e.g., hydrogen gas…) that the vehicle 290 needs).
Regarding claim 3, Bhimani teaches the system according to claim 2. Bhimani further teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least one of: a road inclination, a road condition, a pressure associated with an accelerator of the vehicle, a state of charge (SOC) of the battery management system, a fuel level, a weather condition, one or more braking conditions associated with the vehicle, a vehicle speed, a state of power (SOP) of the vehicle, a voltage level associated with the battery, a Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) associated with the vehicle (Bhimani: Col. 5, lines 31-33; i.e., the perception data may indicate the road conditions, weather conditions, and road type of where the vehicle 290 is travelling; Col. 6, lines 3-5; i.e., health module 250A may receive data indicating a charge, a temperature, a voltage, etc., of the battery; Col. 7, lines 50-53; i.e., the powertrain supervisor 202 may receive information about the current charge/state of a battery, about the current amount of fuel in a fuel tank).
Regarding claim 5, Bhimani teaches the system according to claim 3. Bhimani further teaches wherein upon the condition associated with the one or more braking conditions, the processor (202) is to power the vehicle through the battery for the one or more predetermined intervals (Bhimani: Col. 10, line 63 – Col. 11, line 3; i.e., generate a power distribution that uses power from a battery more than power from other sources. This may be due to the traffic scenario that results from the bridge being raised. For example, when there is traffic, regenerative braking may be used to recharge the battery due to the stop and go nature of traffic. Thus, it may be more efficient to use the battery since the battery may be recharged during the traffic scenario; During braking, the vehicle does not use fuel, and instead is powered through the battery).
Regarding claim 10, Bhimani teaches the system according to claim 3. Bhimani further teaches wherein upon the condition that the voltage level associated with the battery is diminishing, the processor (202) is to disallow powering the vehicle through the battery for the one or more predetermined intervals (Bhimani: Col. 6, lines 3-10; i.e., power source 110A may be a battery and health module 250A may receive data indicating a charge, a temperature, a voltage, etc., of the battery... the health module 250A may determine, calculate, generate, etc., a health value for the power source 110A; Col. 9, lines 59-62; i.e., select a power distribution that … reduces and/or minimizes the degradation to the health/condition of the power sources; the distribution would disallow powering the vehicle through the battery if the voltage is diminishing as it would degrade the health of the battery).
Regarding claim 12, Bhimani teaches the system according to claim 1. Bhimani further teaches wherein the processor (202) is to: determine one or more stress factors associated with at least one component of the vehicle associated with the condition for the one or more predetermined intervals; predict via the AI engine, a failure associated with said at least one component of the vehicle (Bhimani: Col. 5, lines 65-66; i.e., the health modules 250A through 250Z may determine health values for the power sources; Col. 6, lines 26-32; i.e., the health value for a power source may indicate a penalty to the current health or condition of the power source if the power source is used… if the health value was 5, this may indicate that there would be a 5% decrease/degradation in the health/condition of the power source; Col. 6, lines 38-39; i.e., the health modules 250A through 250Z may be machine learning models; degradation of the power source is predicted based on the health value);
and minimize usage of said at least one component and assist a user in rectifying the failure (Bhimani: Col. 9, lines 58-62; i.e., the powertrain supervisor 202 may select a power distribution that provides for an efficient energy consumption of the power sources, and also reduces and/or minimizes the degradation to the health/condition of the power sources; the system assists the user in rectifying the failure by selecting a power distribution that minimizes degradation of the power source).
Claims 13-15, 17, 22, and 24 are rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 12, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhimani and further in view of Beinborn et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0322190; hereinafter Beinborn).
Regarding claim 4, Bhimani teaches the system according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach wherein in response to the condition that a fuel level in the hydrogen powered fuel cell is diminishing, the processor (202) is to power the vehicle through the battery for the one or more predetermined intervals.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Beinborn teaches wherein in response to the condition that a fuel level in the hydrogen powered fuel cell is diminishing, the processor (202) is to power the vehicle through the battery for the one or more predetermined intervals (Beinborn: Par. 74; i.e., if the remaining fuel in the vehicle fuel tanks 108 is less than a minimum fuel threshold, the controller 190 limits the mining truck 102 operation and the fuel cell 20 power output to reduce fuel consumption in step 214 before executing step 216; Par. 76; i.e., if the state of charge available in the battery 106 is greater than the operation threshold required for the mining truck 102 to be exclusively powered by the battery 106, the controller 190 switches the operation of the mining truck 102 to be exclusively powered by the battery).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bhimani to have further incorporated wherein in response to the condition that a fuel level in the hydrogen powered fuel cell is diminishing, the processor (202) is to power the vehicle through the battery for the one or more predetermined intervals, as taught by Beinborn. Doing so would avoid the need for a refueling station along the current route due to the vehicle being powered through the battery until a refueling station can be reached (Beinborn: Par. 30; i.e., the present invention also prevents the need for a fueling station 110 (e.g., a fuel pumping station) to be located on the route).
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6-9, 11, 18-21, and 23 contain further limitations of alternative embodiments that have not been selected to be considered and are rejected for being dependent on a previously rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional claims deemed pertinent in the art of switching power sources supplied to a vehicle based on conditions associated with the vehicle includes Kumaraswamy et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0157850), Ko (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0181934), Lavertu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0202347), Yagawa (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0238944), Kwon et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0006059), and McCluskey et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0053082).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights