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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The limitation “flushing the length of heated pressure line for the flushing time or conveying a designated amount of the aqueous urea solution from the tank to the injector through the length of a heated pressure line forward for the conveyance time” amounts to using the judicial exception in a particular machine. The line is flushed for the calculated flushing time or the fluid is conveyed for the calculated conveyance time both of which use the abstract idea to change the state of a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The combination of Schwarzkopf (US 20190101235 A1) and Sellentin (US 20090314262 A1) does not explicitly teach finding the length of the pressure line using the claimed equation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, claim 10 does not include that a value is unchangeably stored in a memory of a conveying device. Nor does the claim include detecting a change to the overall system such as a replacement of the pressure line. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Schwarzkopf (US 20190101235 A1) does teach determining the length of a pressure line. Para. [0075] states how they determine the length of line that is used to find the resistance. It is correct that they do not determine the length of the line by the claimed equation and that the length is held constant when they use the claimed equation to find resistance values. However, it would have been obvious if the resistance per length were known and the length were unknown to use algebra to rearrange the equation to find the length of the pressure line. This process can be seen in Robinson (“How to Calculate the Length of a Conductor Using Resistivity”; 2019). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to rearrange the equation to find the length of the line because the length of the line can vary as seen in para. [0008] of Schwarzkopf (US 20190101235 A1) and Para. [0252] of Sellentin (US 20090314262 A1). Therefore, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schwarzkopf (US 20190101235 A1), Robinson (“How to Calculate the Length of a Conductor Using Resistivity”; 2019), and Sellentin (US 20090314262 A1).
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.
Claims 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzkopf (US 20190101235 A1) as modified by Robinson (“How to Calculate the Length of a Conductor Using Resistivity”; 2019) and Sellentin (US 20090314262 A1).
With respect to claim 10,
Schwarzkopf teaches,
A method for determining a length of a heated pressure line for a conveying device for an aqueous urea solution in a motor vehicle from a tank to an injector, (Para. [0003] teaches “In vehicles, in particular, such pre-fabricated heatable media lines are provided for conducting media that are liquid, at least in an aggregate state. Media are often conducted through the pre-fabricated heatable media line, which by virtue of a relatively high freezing point, tend to freeze even at quite high ambient temperatures, as a result of which the functionality of a vehicle, for example, can be impaired or even significantly disrupted. This is evident, in particular, in the case of water lines for windscreen washer systems, as in the case of pre-fabricated heatable media lines, by means of which an aqueous urea solution is transported as a medium that is used as a NO.sub.x reaction additive for diesel engines with so-called SCR catalysts.” (i.e. heated pressure line and aqueous urea solution) Para. [0004] teaches “A cold end of the pre-fabricated heatable media line is to be found in the vicinity of a vehicle tank, and a hot end in the vicinity of a metering point of an injection device, that is to say, close to the exhaust system, or the engine, so that advantageously a different power input is provided at the two-line connectors of the pre-fabricated heatable media line.” (i.e. from tank to injector) Para. [0075] teaches “the total length to be used L.sub.50ges on heating element portion 50 (on the line connector 3) results from the length l on heating element portion 50 for the wrapping of the pipe-type media line 2, the length L of the line and the length l.sub.3 on the line connector 3 as L.sub.50ges=8,233 mm. The total length to be used L.sub.51ges on heating element portion 51 (on the line connector 4) results from the length l on heating element portion 51 for the wrapping of the pipe-type media line 2, the length L of the line and the length l.sub.4 on the line connector 4 as L.sub.51ges=8,233 mm.” (i.e. determining length)
wherein the heated pressure line is electrically heatable and is heated, using ohmic resistance, by application of a voltage to an electrical conductor led on the heated pressure line, comprising: (Para. [0044] teaches “Fig. 13 shows a side detail view of seven twisted individual wires of an inventive heating element portion designed as a mixed stranded wire,” Also see table 5 for voltage on the conductor.)
Schwarzkopf does not explicitly teach,
calculating the length of the heated pressure line by:
l
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
l
i
n
e
=
R
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
×
A
ρ
wherein:
A designates a cross section of the electrical conductor;
ρ is a specific electrical resistance of the electrical conductor;
and
R
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
is an electrical resistance of the electrical conductor used to heat the heated pressure line;
However, Schwarzkopf does teach “Since the resistance R of the heating element portion is a function of the specific resistance ρ, the length l of the heating element portion, and its cross-sectional area A, that is to say, R=(ρ×l)/A, a degree of freedom is created by the possibility of varying the specific resistance of the heating element portion if the length of the heating element portion and its cross-sectional area are predetermined, and accordingly held constant for the application in question.” In paragraph 12. The equation in the claim is just the equation in paragraph 12 solved for length.
Robinson teaches,
Finding the length of the conductor using the claimed equation. (At the beginning of the video they figure out the length of the cable without measuring the length directly. They describe that they need to know the cross-sectional area, resistivity, and resistance of the cable in order to solve the problem. They later use the claimed equation to solve for the length of the conductor 7 minutes and 52 seconds into the video.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwarzkopf with calculating the length of the heated pressure line by:
l
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
l
i
n
e
=
R
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
×
A
ρ
wherein: A designates a cross section of the electrical conductor; ρ is a specific electrical resistance of the electrical conductor; and
R
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
is an electrical resistance of the electrical conductor used to heat the heated pressure line. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Schwarzkopf, because para. [0008] teaches “When arranging the heating element or the heating element portions along the media line, their length can be varied as required by varying the pitch, that is to say, the number of turns, on a spiral winding around the media line, as disclosed for example in DE 10 2010 032 189 A1.” Therefore, it would be obvious to use the above equation to find the length of the heating element when the resistance is known but the length is unknown because it is known that the length of the line can vary. Furthermore, as seen in the Robinson video it can be easier to measure the other electrical qualities directly if the length of the line is long or if the line is already installed in the vehicle.
The combination of Schwarzkopf and Robinson does not explicitly teach,
and setting at least one of a flushing time to flush the aqueous urea solution from the length of heated pressure line or a forward conveyance time to convey the aqueous urea solution from the tank to the injector through the length of a heated pressure line based on the calculated length of the heated pressure line and flushing the length of heated pressure line for the flushing time or conveying a designated amount of the aqueous urea solution from the tank to the injector through the length of a heated pressure line forward for the conveyance time.
Sellentin teaches,
setting at least one of a flushing time to flush a solution from the length of heated pressure line. (Para. [0252] teaches “Flushing of the fuel line system 9 and of the injection pump 3 therefore takes place in the fourth state.” And “The fourth state is carried out for a time period which is adapted corresponding to the lengths of the lines.” (i.e. setting a flushing time based on the length of a line.))
and flushing the length of heated pressure line for the flushing time. (Para. [0252] teaches “Flushing of the fuel line system 9 and of the injection pump 3 therefore takes place in the fourth state.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf and Robinson with setting a flushing time to flush the aqueous urea solution from the length of heated pressure line and flushing the length of heated pressure line for the flushing time. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf and Robinson, because the volume in the lines differs according to the length of the lines which would require a different flushing time to ensure a complete evacuation of the system. This is further seen in Para. [0252] of Sellentin “Said time period is longer in the winter variant as per FIG. 3 than in the summer variant as per FIG. 2, since in the winter variant, considerably longer fuel lines are necessary overall, and therefore a greater volume must be flushed.”
With respect to claim 17,
Schwarzkopf further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the heated pressure line is formed from an electrically conductive material, the heated pressure line itself forming an electrical conductor for heating. (Para. [0015] teaches “The mixed wire strand advantageously consists of a number of individual wires twisted around a high tensile strength support element or a high tensile strength core, of which at least one individual wire can consist of a copper-nickel alloy, and at least one of the other individual wires can consist of copper, or a nickel-chromium alloy. Furthermore, at least one of the twisted individual wires of the at least one heating element portion can consist of a copper-zinc alloy or a copper-tin alloy. These materials prove to be particularly advantageous with regard to the selective adjustment of the specific resistance of the heating element portion, that is to say, of the mixed wire strand.”)
With respect to claim 18,
Schwarzkopf further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the pressure line is attached to the tank in a fluid-conducting manner at a free end via a first connector and, at the second free end, is attached to the injector in a fluid-conducting manner by a second connector. (Para. [0004] teaches “A cold end of the pre-fabricated heatable media line is to be found in the vicinity of a vehicle tank, and a hot end in the vicinity of a metering point of an injection device, that is to say, close to the exhaust system, or the engine, so that advantageously a different power input is provided at the two-line connectors of the pre-fabricated heatable media line.”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzkopf (US 20190101235 A1), Robinson (“How to Calculate the Length of a Conductor Using Resistivity”; 2019), and Sellentin (US 20090314262 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gregg (21.1 Resistors in Series and Parallel - College Physics for AP® Courses 2E; 2019).
With respect to claim 11,
Schwarzkopf does not explicitly teach,
the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the electrical resistance
R
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
is given by:
R
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
=
R
t
o
t
a
l
-
(
R
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
1
+
R
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
2
)
Wherein:
R
t
o
t
a
l
corresponds to a total electrical resistance of a heating conductor configured to heat the heated pressure line and the electrical resistance of electrically heatable connectors used on the heated pressure line.
Gregg teaches,
Finding the total resistance of the circuit by adding the resistance of each component. To find the resistance of one component of the total resistance the equation could be rewritten to match the above equation. (Resistors in series section) The conductor has three components with resistance. The two connectors and the conductor itself. The total resistance if using the information taught in Gregg would be Rtotal=Rheating conductor + Rconnector1 +Rconnector2 rewriting the equation to solve for Rheating conductor would give the above equation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin wherein the electrical resistance R_(heating conductor) is given by: R_(heating conductor)=R_total-(R_(connector 1)+R_(connector 2)) wherein: R_total corresponds to a total electrical resistance of a heating conductor configured to heat the heated pressure line and the electrical resistance of electrically heatable connectors used on the heated pressure line. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin, because it is applying a known technique of Gregg to the known device of Schwarzkopf to find the resistance of just the conductor itself. See MPEP 2143.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzkopf (US 20190101235 A1), Robinson (“How to Calculate the Length of a Conductor Using Resistivity”; 2019), Sellentin (US 20090314262 A1), and Gregg (21.1 Resistors in Series and Parallel - College Physics for AP® Courses 2E; 2019) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Urone (20.4 Electric Power and Energy - College Physics; 2019).
With respect to claim 12,
The combination of Schwarzkopf, Sellentin, and Gregg does not explicitly teach,
The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the total electrical resistance
R
t
o
t
a
l
is given by a ratio of an applied voltage U to a current intensity I, wherein a power P used for heating is given by multiplying the applied voltage U and the current intensity I.
Urone teaches,
wherein the total electrical resistance R_total is given by a ratio of an applied voltage U to a current intensity I, wherein a power P used for heating is given by multiplying the applied voltage U and the current intensity I. (The power section teaches Ohms law and that power equals the voltage multiplied by the current.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, Sellentin, and Gregg wherein the total electrical resistance R_total is given by a ratio of an applied voltage U to a current intensity I, wherein a power P used for heating is given by multiplying the applied voltage U and the current intensity I such as that of Gregg. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, Sellentin, and Gregg, because Ohms law is a universally known mathematical rule as taught in Urone. Also, see MPEP 2143.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzkopf (US 20190101235 A1), Robinson (“How to Calculate the Length of a Conductor Using Resistivity”; 2019), and Sellentin (US 20090314262 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Chmielewski (US 20100107615 A1).
With respect to claim 13,
Schwarzkopf does not explicitly teach,
The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the heated pressure line is coated with an electrically conductive material, which forms the electrical conductor.
Chmielewski teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the heated pressure line is coated with an electrically conductive material, which forms the electrical conductor. (Para. [0102] teaches “To improve the flange heating, an or more than one electrically conductive coating 760 (FIG. 10) may be applied to the outside surface 712 of the flange 706, and an electrical connection may be coupled to the coating 760 to provide electricity to the coating and flange 706. The coating may be applied and/or cover all or less than all of the outer surface 712 of the flange 706.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin wherein the heated pressure line is coated with an electrically conductive material, which forms the electrical conductor such as that of Chmielewski. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin, because the coating would allow the pipe itself to be heated and reduce the cost of materials as the wire wrapping would no longer be needed. Also, Para. [0102] of Chmielewski teaches that it would allow electricity to be provided directly to the pipe.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzkopf (US 20190101235 A1), Robinson (“How to Calculate the Length of a Conductor Using Resistivity”; 2019), and Sellentin (US 20090314262 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rodatz (US 10301997 B2).
With respect to claim 14,
Schwarzkopf further teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein a determination of the length of the heated pressure line is carried out a first time after a final mounting has been carried out, (Para. [0024] teaches “Here the resulting lay length when twisting the individual wires into the at least one heating element portion is advantageously 6 to 15 mm, in particular 9 mm. Here the lay length has an influence on the resulting resistance, wherein the influence is about 3%. On the outer surface, the at least one heating element portion advantageously has a protective sheath, which in particular consists of a plastic material.” Also see table 6.)
Schwarzkopf does not explicitly teach,
wherein the determined value is stored in a non-rewritable memory of the conveying device.
Rodatz teaches,
wherein the determined value is stored in a non-rewritable memory of the conveying device. (Col. 8 Ln(s). [7-15] teaches “In the event of faults of the temperature sensor 18 or of the heating device 26 being identified, an entry is recorded in a fault memory within the dosing control unit 9 or within the control device 6 of the internal combustion engine 1. Furthermore, in the event of a fault occurring, a corresponding signal can be output to the driver of the vehicle that is driven by way of the internal combustion engine by way of a fault display device” Col. 7 Ln(s). [57-60] teaches “The temperature signal approximately reaches the initial value again, that is to say the start temperature T0, already at a time t3. By contrast, if the temperature drop after the deactivation of the heating device is likewise slow (line L3), it is inferred that the temperature sensor 18 is faulty.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin wherein the determined value is stored in a non-rewritable memory of the conveying device such as that of Rodatz. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin, because sending a fault could prevent damage to the vehicle and storing the value would allow for future reference. Rodatz further teaches in Col. 3 lines [57-59] that their method allows the delivery rate of the line to be regulated.
With respect to claim 15,
Schwarzkopf does not explicitly teach,
The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the method is carried out repeatedly at defined times during a period of use of the motor vehicle and a comparison is made with the value stored in the non-rewritable memory.
Rodatz teaches,
wherein the method is carried out repeatedly at defined times during a period of use of the motor vehicle and a comparison is made with the value stored in the non-rewritable memory. (Abstract teaches “determining whether the signal of the temperature sensor changes by a predefined expected value (ΔT) within a predefined time period (Δt2); provisionally identifying the temperature sensor as fault-free if it does; deactivating the heating device; determining whether the signal of the temperature sensor reaches the start temperature (T0) again within a time period (Δt3); and confirming the temperature sensor as fault-free if it does.” Col.5 Ln(s). [55-60] teaches “The dosing control unit 9 may comprise a processing unit (processor) 28 which is coupled to a program memory 29 and to a value memory (data memory) 30. In the program memory 29 and in the value memory 30, there are stored programs and values respectively which are required for the operation of the SCR exhaust-gas aftertreatment system 5.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin wherein the method is carried out repeatedly at defined times during a period of use of the motor vehicle and a comparison is made with the value stored in the non-rewritable memory such as that of Rodatz. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin, because periodically checking misalignment in values could prevent future faults. Rodatz further teaches in Col. 3 lines [57-59] that their method allows the delivery rate of the line to be regulated.
With respect to claim 16,
Schwarzkopf does not explicitly teach,
The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein upon determining that there is a deviation between the value stored in the non-rewritable memory and a newly determined value, an error message is generated.
Rodatz teaches,
wherein upon determining that there is a deviation between the value stored in the non-rewritable memory and a newly determined value, an error message is generated. (Col. 8 Ln(s). [7-14] teaches “In the event of faults of the temperature sensor 18 or of the heating device 26 being identified, an entry is recorded in a fault memory within the dosing control unit 9 or within the control device 6 of the internal combustion engine 1. Furthermore, in the event of a fault occurring, a corresponding signal can be output to the driver of the vehicle that is driven by way of the internal combustion engine by way of a fault display device.” Abstract teaches “determining whether the signal of the temperature sensor changes by a predefined expected value (ΔT) within a predefined time period (Δt2);”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin wherein upon determining that there is a deviation between the value stored in the non-rewritable memory and a newly determined value, an error message is generated such as that of Rodatz. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Schwarzkopf, Robinson, and Sellentin, because alerting someone to a fault could prevent further damage to the system. Rodatz further teaches in Col. 3 lines [57-59] that their method allows the delivery rate of the line to be regulated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights