DETAILED ACTION
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on February 26, 2024, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Technology Center Director has approved reopening prosecution by signing below:
/James P. Trammell/
Director TC3600
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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on July 14, 2023.
Claims 11-21 have been presented for examination.
Claims 11-21 are currently rejected.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020161495) in view of Tomura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120150406).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020161495) in view of Tomura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120150406), further in view of Inoue et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090025996).
Claims 11-16 and 18-21 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020161495) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0355174).
Claim 17 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020161495) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0355174), further in view of Inoue et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090025996).
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.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020161495) in view of Tomura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120150406).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaki teaches a method for onboard diagnosis in a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining whether one or more release conditions for a start of an onboard diagnosis are fulfilled; (Yamaki ¶ 64 discloses an ECU that “checks in step S10 whether a diagnosis running condition is satisfied [i.e., a release condition],” such that “if the diagnosis running condition is satisfied, it proceeds to step S11 for executing the diagnosis.” The diagnosis running condition is a release condition because the diagnosis running condition includes satisfying a fueling mode, see at least ¶ 120, which is in accordance with paragraph 13 of the instant specification defining a “release condition” to be a condition that relates to an operating point of the vehicle.)
starting the onboard diagnosis. (Yamaki ¶ 64 “if the diagnosis running condition is satisfied, it proceeds to step S11 for executing the diagnosis.”)
Yamaki does not expressly teach:
upon determining that at least one release condition of the one or more release conditions is not fulfilled, controlling at least one vehicle function in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled; and
However, Tomura teaches:
upon determining that at least one release condition of the one or more release conditions is not fulfilled, controlling at least one vehicle function in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled; and (Tomura ¶ 59 discloses that when the engine stops automatically, diagnosis is performed. However, if the stopping of the engine has not been performed and the value of F is 0 [i.e., one or more release conditions is not fulfilled], the brake is actuated [i.e., controlling at least one vehicle function] so that the condition is met (e.g., F=1) to perform the engine stop and the diagnosis. See Fig. 3. The Examiner notes that “upon determining” appears to contain a contingent limitation and is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See, e.g., Ex parte Sheinfeld Appeal No. 2018-007091 (PTAB 2019) at *13; Ex Parte Vdovjak 2018-007087 (PTAB 2019) at 18; Ex parte Ionescu 2018-002662 (PTAB 2018) at *4; Ex parte Shier 2017-011168 (PTAB 2019) at *23; and Ex parte Blight 2017-006004 (PTAB 2018) at *12 (supporting the interpretation that “upon” limitations are conditional).)
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 onboard diagnosis of Yamaki to incorporate controlling at least one vehicle function such that a condition is fulfilled, as taught in Tomura, “to ensure the driving force of the vehicle and proper application of the braking force to the wheel, according to various situations of the vehicle” (Tomura ¶ 10), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 12, Yamaki in view of Tomura teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein Yamaki further teaches the controlling of the at least one vehicle function comprises:
setting at least one operating point of an engine of the vehicle such that the at least one release condition is fulfilled. (Yamaki ¶ 56 discloses that “In the stage of assembling the ECU 70 in the vehicle 100, engine control programs for a fuel injection control, an ignition timing control, etc. and data depending on the model of the vehicle 100, such as control constants, are written on the EEPROM through the inspection tool 156b provided at the line end 156.”)
Regarding claim 13, Yamaki in view of Tomura teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein Yamaki further teaches:
the at least one operating point comprises at least one of a speed or a torque of an engine. (Yamaki ¶ 61 discloses “performing the engine control such as ... idle rotational speed control”)
Regarding claim 14, Yamaki in view of Tomura teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein Tomura further teaches the controlling of the at least one vehicle function comprises:
receiving input data, which wherein the input data indicate an accelerator pedal actuation by a driver; and (Tomura ¶ 39 discloses “The engine-ECU 64 receives output signals of an accelerator-pedal sensor 80 that detects an accelerator actuation amount (a depression amount of an accelerator-pedal)”)
processing the input data for engine control such that the at least one release condition is fulfilled based on the engine control. (Tomura ¶ 39 “The engine-ECU 64 executes various control programs stored in the ROM or the like to perform, on the basis of the output signals of the sensors,” including accelerator actuation, such that “when it is determined that the accelerator is being actuated, the restriction of forcible restarting of the engine is canceled,” see ¶ 110.)
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 vehicle control of Yamaki to incorporate engine control and accelerator pedal actuation, as taught in Tomura, to “allow the driving force of the vehicle to be ensured as early as possible” (Tomura ¶ 10), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 15, Yamaki in view of Tomura teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein Tomura further teaches the processing of the input data for the engine control comprises:
compensating for accelerator pedal actuations by the driver which exceed a threshold. (Tomura ¶ 92 discloses “Whether or not the accelerator is being actuated may be determined, for example, on the basis of a determination of whether or not the accelerator actuation amount is larger than 0 on the basis of an output value of the accelerator-pedal sensor 80.”)
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 onboard diagnosis of Yamaki to incorporate controlling at least one vehicle function such that a condition is fulfilled, as taught in Tomura, “to ensure the driving force of the vehicle and proper application of the braking force to the wheel, according to various situations of the vehicle” (Tomura ¶ 10), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 16, Yamaki in view of Tomura teaches the method according to claim 11, Tomura further comprising:
ending the controlling of the at least one vehicle function such that the at least one release condition is fulfilled after the onboard diagnosis is carried out. (Tomura Fig. 4 depicts a diagnostic process that involves ending control of the engine system at the end of the process. Also see Tomura [0061]-[0064].)
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 vehicle control of Yamaki to incorporate ending control when a condition is fulfilled, as taught in Tomura, for enhancement of fuel efficiency of the engine (Tomumra ¶ 48), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki in view of Tomura et al., further in view of Inoue et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090025996).
Regarding claim 17, Yamaki in view of Tomura does not expressly teach the method according to claim 11, wherein:
the controlling of the at least one vehicle function takes place such that a change of a driving behavior of the vehicle causes no change in an acceleration of the vehicle.
However, Inoue teaches:
the controlling of the at least one vehicle function takes place such that a change of a driving behavior of the vehicle causes no change in an acceleration of the vehicle. (Inoue ¶ 125 discloses “a condition A2 (it is determined that the first control device does not operate normally as a result of an abnormal diagnosis) is satisfied when the constant speed traveling control conditions are satisfied,” such that “the constant speed traveling control condition flag Xc is maintained at "1,” see ¶ 126. The Examiner notes that the limitation “such that” appears to recite an intended use and is therefore not expressly required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Even so, Inoue discloses controlling a vehicle function such that a change in the driving behavior causes no change in acceleration, see Inoue ¶¶ 125-126.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the controlling the at least one vehicle function such that a change of a driving behavior of the vehicle causes no change in acceleration, as disclosed by Inoue, in place of the controlling the at least one vehicle function of Yamaki, with reasonable expectation of success, because substituting the control of Inoue would result in the controlling the vehicle, such as actuating the brake, such that the vehicle has no change in acceleration.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamaki and Tomura with the maintained acceleration of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent the vehicle driving force from becoming excessive relative to the vehicle braking force (Inoue [0187]).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being further unpatentable over Yamaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020161495) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0355174).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaki teaches a method for onboard diagnosis in a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining whether one or more release conditions for a start of an onboard diagnosis are fulfilled; (Yamaki ¶ 64 discloses an ECU that “checks in step S10 whether a diagnosis running condition is satisfied [i.e., a release condition],” such that “if the diagnosis running condition is satisfied, it proceeds to step S11 for executing the diagnosis.” The diagnosis running condition is a release condition because the diagnosis running condition includes satisfying a fueling mode, see at least ¶ 120, which is in accordance with paragraph 13 of the instant specification defining a “release condition” to be a condition that relates to an operating point of the vehicle.)
starting the onboard diagnosis. (Yamaki ¶ 64 “if the diagnosis running condition is satisfied, it proceeds to step S11 for executing the diagnosis.”)
Yamaki does not expressly teach:
upon determining that at least one release condition of the one or more release conditions is not fulfilled, controlling at least one vehicle function in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled; and
However, Lee teaches:
upon determining that at least one release condition of the one or more release conditions is not fulfilled, controlling at least one vehicle function n in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled; and (Lee ¶ 10 discloses that when “a condition in which a regenerative brake power is a predetermined value” is dissatisfied [i.e., upon determining that at least one release condition is not fulfilled], initiating “the diagnosis inducing mode ... to satisfy a condition for diagnosing the oxygen sensor to induce the diagnosis of the oxygen sensor,” wherein inducing the diagnosis includes “disengaging the fuel injection of an engine [i.e., controlling at least one vehicle function]” to satisfy the condition for the diagnosis, see ¶ 38. The Examiner notes that the limitation “in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled” appears to recite an intended use (e.g., “in such a way”) and is therefore not expressly required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Even so, Lee ¶¶ 10 and 38 discloses disengaging a fuel injection of an engine [i.e., controlling at least one vehicle function] when a condition is dissatisfied to “satisfy a condition” for the diagnosis to “induce the diagnosis [i.e., in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled]” see ¶ 10).
starting the onboard diagnosis. (Lee ¶ 9 discloses that “when a condition for diagnosing an oxygen sensor is satisfied,” initiating a “diagnosis inducing mode.” Also see at least ¶¶ 10 and 35).
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 onboard diagnosis of Yamaki to incorporate controlling at least one vehicle function such that a condition is fulfilled, as taught in Lee, so that unnecessary diagnoses of the oxygen sensor may be minimized to reduce the number of diagnoses of the oxygen sensor that have been excessively performed to avoid the dissatisfaction of the rules (Lee ¶ 14), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020161495) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0355174).
Regarding claim 18, Yamaki teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code which, when executed on one or more processors, carries out acts of:
determining whether one or more release conditions for a start of an onboard diagnosis are fulfilled; (Yamaki [0064] “First, the ECU checks in step S10 whether a diagnosis running condition is satisfied.”)
starting the onboard diagnosis. (Yamaki ¶ 64 “if the diagnosis running condition is satisfied, it proceeds to step S11 for executing the diagnosis.”)
Yamaki does not expressly teach:
upon determining that at least one release condition of the one or more release conditions is not fulfilled, controlling at least one vehicle function in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled; and
However, Lee teaches:
upon determining that at least one release condition of the one or more release conditions is not fulfilled, controlling at least one vehicle function in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled; and (Lee ¶ 10 discloses that when “a condition in which a regenerative brake power is a predetermined value” is dissatisfied [i.e., upon determining that at least one release condition is not fulfilled], initiating “the diagnosis inducing mode ... to satisfy a condition for diagnosing the oxygen sensor to induce the diagnosis of the oxygen sensor,” wherein inducing the diagnosis includes “disengaging the fuel injection of an engine [i.e., controlling at least one vehicle function]” to satisfy the condition for the diagnosis, see ¶ 38. The Examiner notes that the limitation “in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled” appears to recite an intended use (e.g., “in such a way”) and is therefore not expressly required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Even so, Lee ¶¶ 10 and 38 discloses disengaging a fuel injection of an engine [i.e., controlling at least one vehicle function] when a condition is dissatisfied to “satisfy a condition” for the diagnosis to “induce the diagnosis [i.e., in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled]” see ¶ 10).
starting the onboard diagnosis. (Lee ¶ 9 discloses that “when a condition for diagnosing an oxygen sensor is satisfied,” initiating a “diagnosis inducing mode.” Also see at least ¶¶ 10 and 35).
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 onboard diagnosis of Yamaki to incorporate controlling at least one vehicle function such that a condition is fulfilled, as taught in Lee, so that unnecessary diagnoses of the oxygen sensor may be minimized to reduce the number of diagnoses of the oxygen sensor that have been excessively performed to avoid the dissatisfaction of the rules (Lee ¶ 14), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 19, Yamaki in combination with Lee teaches a system for onboard diagnosis in a vehicle, the system comprising one or more processors which are configured to execute a method comprising:
determining whether one or more release conditions for a start of an onboard diagnosis are fulfilled; (Yamaki ¶ 64 discloses “First, the ECU checks in step S10 whether a diagnosis running condition is satisfied.”)
starting the onboard diagnosis. (Yamaki ¶ 64 “if the diagnosis running condition is satisfied, it proceeds to step S11 for executing the diagnosis.”)
Yamaki does not expressly teach:
upon determining that at least one release condition of the one or more release conditions is not fulfilled, controlling at least one vehicle function in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled; and
However, Lee teaches:
upon determining that at least one release condition of the one or more release conditions is not fulfilled, controlling at least one vehicle function in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled; and (Lee ¶ 10 discloses that when “a condition in which a regenerative brake power is a predetermined value” is dissatisfied [i.e., upon determining that at least one release condition is not fulfilled], initiating “the diagnosis inducing mode ... to satisfy a condition for diagnosing the oxygen sensor to induce the diagnosis of the oxygen sensor,” wherein inducing the diagnosis includes “disengaging the fuel injection of an engine [i.e., controlling at least one vehicle function]” to satisfy the condition for the diagnosis, see ¶ 38. The Examiner notes that the limitation “in such a way that the at least one release condition is fulfilled” appears to recite an intended use (e.g., “in such a way”) and is therefore not expressly required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation.)
starting the onboard diagnosis. (Lee ¶ 9 discloses that “when a condition for diagnosing an oxygen sensor is satisfied,” initiating a “diagnosis inducing mode.” Also see at least ¶¶ 10 and 35).
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 onboard diagnosis of Yamaki to incorporate controlling at least one vehicle function such that a condition is fulfilled, as taught in Lee, so that unnecessary diagnoses of the oxygen sensor may be minimized to reduce the number of diagnoses of the oxygen sensor that have been excessively performed to avoid the dissatisfaction of the rules (Lee ¶ 14), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 20, Yamaki in view of Lee teaches the vehicle comprising the system according to claim 19.
See the reference citation provided above for claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, Yamaki in view of Lee teaches the vehicle according to claim 20, wherein Yamaki further teaches:
the vehicle is a motor vehicle. (Yamaki in at least ¶ 4 dislcoses “A power unit and other auxiliary systems of a vehicle are generally monitored by an on-board diagnosis apparatus. An engine is diagnosed by an on-board control unit with a self-diagnosis system on the following points; malfunctions of various actuators such as solenoid valves, driving motors and relays”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kaneko et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0381996) discloses an apparatus for controlling a hybrid vehicle including a condition satisfaction determiner that determines whether execution conditions of diagnosis performed in a fuel cut state are all satisfied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662