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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/3/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-39 are objected to because of the following informalities: the spelling of “fuelling” and “refuelling” are used throughout, and claim 21 recites “wherein control the power system…comprises”. Appropriate correction of spelling and grammar is required.
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 29, 34, 36, 38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites “a shutdown process” in more than one instance. It is unclear if these instances are the same or distinct. For purposes of examination these instances will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 34 recites “wherein the shutdown process comprises a plurality of steps, preferably including…”. The term preferably is indefinite and optional, thus an embodiment of the invention comprises simply “a plurality of steps”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a program, per se. The processor is not positively claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 26-32, 34-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230143467A1 (“Pelger”) in view of DE102021206593A1 (“Braun”, machine translation provided).
As per claims 21 and 22, Pelger teaches the limitations of the system and method:
A computer system comprising a processor device configured to control a power system of a vehicle, the power system comprising a fuel cell system and an energy storage system comprising one or more batteries, wherein the fuel cell system and the energy storage system are adapted to provide electric energy for powering the vehicle, the processor device further being configured to: predict a refuelling event during which the vehicle is expected to refuel a fuel tank of the fuel cell system at a fuelling station, estimate an instance, associated with a time and/or a position, for initiating a shutdown process of the fuel cell system, wherein after the estimated instance the vehicle is expected to be operated in a first operating mode, in which energy for powering the vehicle is at least partly supplied by the energy storage system and not by the fuel cell system, until an arrival to the fuelling station (Pelger at least the abstract, [0022-0026], FIG. 2, [0011-0012])
wherein the processor device is further configured to: determine a state-of-energy threshold level of the energy storage system, the state-of-energy threshold level corresponding to a value of the state-of-energy of the energy storage system which is sufficient for the vehicle to travel from the estimated instance to the fuelling station in the first operating mode (Pelger at least [0050-0052])
Pelger does not disclose, which Braun teaches:
control the power system in a way such that the state-of-energy level of the energy storage system is equal to or higher than the determined state-of-energy threshold level when the vehicle reaches the estimated instance, wherein control the power system in a way such that the state-of-energy level of the energy storage system is equal to or higher than the determined state-of-energy threshold level when the vehicle reaches the estimated instance comprises temporarily increasing a power output from the fuel cell system and charging the energy storage system by use of the power from the fuel cell system. (Braun at least the abstract: “the control unit is designed to determine energy and power flows that are required to end a current driving cycle, to shut down the fuel cell system … with a maximum possible time interval or a predetermined time period… to calculate an energy balance, and wherein the control unit is designed to cause operation of the fuel cell system for charging the at least one electrical energy store and/or for refueling the at least one fuel cell fuel store (8) depending on the energy balance”, and “a safety function to require a minimum charge of the at least one electrical energy storage device, which would allow the vehicle to drive at least a predetermined route even without a fuel cell system. In this context, the necessary energy or the power requirement for the next gas station or charging station could also be estimated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pelger with the aforementioned limitations taught by Braun with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow the vehicle to drive at least a predetermined route even without a fuel cell system.
As per claim 23, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
wherein the method further comprises using a first instance to define a first instance limit, wherein the initiation of the shutdown process of the fuel cell system is triggered after the first instance limit. (Pelger at least [0025])
As per claim 24, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
the first instance corresponds to a first time point or a first position point in relation to the fuelling station. (Pelger at least [0025-0026])
As per claim 26, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
using a second instance to define a second instance limit, wherein the initiation of the shutdown process of the fuel cell system is triggered before the second instance limit. (Pelger at least [0013], [0043-0045])
As per claim 27, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
the second instance corresponds to a second time point or a second position point in relation to the fuelling station. (Pelger at least [0013], [0043-0045])
As per claim 28, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
the second time point is associated with a latest possible time point for initiating the shutdown of the fuel cell system, or wherein the second position point is associated with a closest possible position point away from the fuelling station for initiating the shutdown of the fuel cell system, such that the fuel cell system is completely shut down before the arrival to the fuelling station. (Pelger at least [0013], [0043-0045])
As per claim 29, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
estimating the instance for initiating a shutdown process of the fuel cell system comprises determining a preferred instance within the first instance limit and the second instance limit, wherein the preferred instance is determined based on a degradation factor of the fuel cell system and/or of the energy storage system. (Pelger at least [0046-0047])
As per claim 30, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
starting the shutdown process of the fuel cell system at the estimated instance. (Pelger at least [0013])
As per claim 31, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
the method further comprises switching a vehicle operating mode to the first operating mode at the estimated instance. (Pelger at least [0013])
As per claim 32, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
the instance for initiating the shutdown process of the fuel cell system is estimated based on at least one of a time duration for shutting down the fuel cell system, refuelling station location information, a current vehicle speed, a vehicle weight, a maximum allowable state-of-energy level of the energy storage system and information about the route that the vehicle is currently travelling on including at least one of terrain information, speed limit information, and traffic information. (Pelger at least [0013], [0043-0045])
As per claim 34, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
the time duration for shutting down the fuel cell system is dependent on the process of shutting down the fuel cell system, and/or a power level at which the fuel cell system is running at the estimated instance and/or ambient temperature, wherein the shutdown process comprises a plurality of steps, preferably including disconnecting air supply and fuel supply to fuel cell stacks, disconnecting electric loads with the fuel cell system and conditioning components of the fuel cell system. (Pelger at least [0046-0048], [0015-0019])
As per claim 35, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
the prediction of the refuelling event is based on at least one of current fuel level of the fuel tank, an estimated fuel consumption and information about available fuelling stations along the route that the vehicle is currently travelling on. (Pelger at least [0044])
As per claim 36, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
program code for performing, when executed by the processor device, the method of claim 22. (Pelger at least [0031])
As per claim 37, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
one or more control units configured to perform the method of claim 22. (Pelger at least the abstract)
As per claim 38, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device, cause the processor device to perform the method of claim 22. (Pelger at least [0032])
As per claim 39, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger additionally teaches:
A vehicle comprising a power system adapted to provide electric power for powering the vehicle, and further comprising the computer system according to claim 21. (Pelger at least [0006])
Claim(s) 25, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelger and Braun in view of DE102021004752A1 (“Braun2”, machine translation provided).
As per claim 25, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger does not disclose, which Braun2 teaches:
wherein the first time point is associated with an earliest possible time point for initiating the shutdown process of the fuel cell system, from which the vehicle is able to travel to the fuelling station in the first operating mode if the energy storage system is charged to a maximum allowable state-of-energy level, or wherein the first position point is associated with a furthest possible position point away from the fuelling station for initiating the shutdown of the fuel cell system, from which the vehicle is able to travel to the fuelling station in the first operating mode if the energy storage system is charged to a maximum allowable state-of- energy level. (Braun2 at least the abstract and “a time course of the battery energy and the usable fuel cell energy with reduced fuel consumption of the fuel cell”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pelger with the aforementioned limitations taught by Braun2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to determine maximum possible battery range.
As per claim 33, Pelger in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Pelger does not disclose, which Braun2 teaches:
the maximum allowable state-of-energy level of the energy storage system is dependent on a capacity of the energy storage system as well as a current fuel level of the fuel tank. (Braun2 at least the abstract and “a time course of the battery energy and the usable fuel cell energy at the maximum range of the vehicle…calculating the range according to an embodiment of the invention, suitable for the operating strategy of the vehicle, in particular a range extender vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pelger with the aforementioned limitations taught by Braun2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to determine maximum possible battery range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20240208368A1 (“Farber”) discloses aspects of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights