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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 08/12/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 3 – 8 remain as original.
Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 08/12/2025 as to claims 1 – 10 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
In view of Applicant’s claim amendments of 10/30/2025, a new secondary reference (Jerger) was needed to replace the prior secondary, Meier. The Meir reference was eliminated from the present analysis.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended overcome any 35 USC 103 rejection:
Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, is patentable over the cited references.
Remarks 4
Examiner respectfully disagrees. What is argued by Applicant here primarily (as noted below) relates to the claims as amended on 10/30/2025. These Applicant arguments when written had not then been addressed by examiner. That said, with regard to Applicant’s argument, Remarks 5, the Specification at [014-015] does in fact indicate that a timewise (shorter time interval verses a longer time interval) variable automotive take off delay is desirable in certain situations. However, examiner is not entitled to read express selected passages of the Specification herein into said amended claims. Notwithstanding the above, and in the spirit of compact prosecution, examiner has analyzed this amended limitation as claimed. Please see the below 35 USC 103 analysis.
Applicant further argues per 35 USC 103 however that the Meier delay nonetheless is not based on a drive power requirement (see above). Remarks 5. This point is moot in view of the new secondary reference. Please see the below 35 USC 103 analysis. As above, pre-heating measures of temperatures of the engine driven vehicle system certainly relate to drive power requirements, lest one wouldn’t ever pause to warm up a vehicle’s for example, catalytic converter, prior to actual departure via power.
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 08/12/2025, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 10/30/2025, as seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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 USC 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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 1 – 10 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Willing (US20220333540A1) in view of Jerger (US20150032356A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10:
Willing discloses:
A method for operating a motor vehicle comprising an internal combustion engine, the method comprising: (“The invention relates to a method for operating an internal combustion engine of a drivetrain of a vehicle during launching, and to a vehicle.”, [002]);
starting an internal combustion engine; (“The method according to aspects of the invention is a method for operating an internal combustion engine of a drivetrain of a vehicle during launching of the vehicle. The vehicle has an exhaust-gas aftertreatment system for purifying exhaust gas of the internal combustion engine, wherein, after a starting operation of the internal combustion engine, the drivetrain is operated in a first operating state, wherein, in this first operating state, the internal combustion engine is operated at idle.”, [008]);
ascertaining a drive power requirement; (“wherein, after a starting operation of the internal combustion engine, the drivetrain is operated in a first operating state, wherein, in this first operating state, the internal combustion engine is operated at idle. The exhaust-gas aftertreatment system is heated by means of the internal combustion engine, in particular by means of the exhaust gases thereof. In this first operating state, a launch prohibition is active, wherein the launch prohibition that is active in the first operating state prevents launching using the internal combustion engine. Launching of the vehicle, or a starting-off operation of the motor vehicle, is accordingly not possible. The launch prohibition may in particular be configured such that, when the launch prohibition is active, an engagement of a gear by the driver of the motor vehicle is not possible.”, [008]);
determining a takeoff delay for reaching a predetermined minimum temperature for an exhaust aftertreatment system, (“The vehicle has an exhaust-gas aftertreatment system for purifying exhaust gas of the internal combustion engine, wherein, after a starting operation of the internal combustion engine, the drivetrain is operated in a first operating state, wherein, in this first operating state, the internal combustion engine is operated at idle. The exhaust-gas aftertreatment system is heated by means of the internal combustion engine, in particular by means of the exhaust gases thereof. In this first operating state, a launch prohibition is active, wherein the launch prohibition that is active in the first operating state prevents launching using the internal combustion engine.”, [008]), a “takeoff delay” is active;
the predetermined minimum temperature being a function of a setpoint internal combustion motor drive power that is to be provided by the internal combustion engine to meet the drive power requirement; and Examiner broadly interprets this limitation to include the temperature at which it has been determined that the exhaust aftertreatment system is satisfied, … (“After a predefined state of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system has been attained, in particular a specified operating temperature of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system, the drivetrain is operated in a second operating state, wherein the launch prohibition is inactive in the second operating state, such that launching using the internal combustion engine is possible in the second operating state.”, [009]), the vehicle is brought (“warmed up”) to a exhaust temperature state wherein the vehicle is now ready to launch (drive);
outputting, after the takeoff delay elapses, a release signal for releasing a takeoff block. (“The method according to aspects of the invention thus ensures that, after a starting operation of the internal combustion engine, the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system firstly attains a predefined state, in particular a predefined temperature, such that the efficiency of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system is increased. During this time, the vehicle cannot be launched using the internal combustion engine, whereby a high power demand on the internal combustion engine for the purposes of launching of the vehicle, which is associated with high emissions, is avoided.”, [010]);
Willing does not expressly disclose, but Jerger teaches: -
such that the takeoff delay varies depending on the driver power requirement; (“According to an illustrative embodiment there is provided a method of initiating treatment of the exhaust stream of an internal combustion engine of a vehicle having electronically sensed wheel brakes and an electronically sensed drive line, the method comprising the steps of:
starting the vehicle engine;
running the vehicle engine at a first idle speed;
detecting movement of a drive line selector from a neutral to a drive condition while vehicle wheel brakes are activated;
delaying enablement of said drive line until at least one indication that a driver desires that the vehicle starts moving is detected, so as to prolong duration of said first idle speed; and
reducing engine speed from said first idle speed to a second, lower idle speed for drive line enablement subsequent to the delaying.
[010]
Note that the takeoff delay as above is a function of both temperature and a drive power requirement selected by driver;
and upon starting the internal combustion engine, a blocking signal is output to activate a takeoff block to prevent the vehicle from taking off; (“This invention relates to improvements in the control of emissions of internal combustion engines, in particular to achieve more rapid initiation of treatment of exhaust gases upon cold start of an engine.”, [001]) and (”Engine speed is lowered if an indication that the driver wishes to drive off is detected, at time (C), e.g. release of the brake pedal.”, [Abstract, published 1/29/2015). ]), the “blocking signal” that activates the “take off block” is, for example, the brake, which is released when the driver signals a takeoff;
so that the vehicle can take off with the internal combustion engine being operable to meet the drive power requirement. (“Typically the drive line will be enabled by engagement of a clutch to permit torque to be transmitted from the vehicle engine to the vehicle wheels. The clutch may be wet or dry, and form part of a multi-speed transmission commanded by a suitable electronic control unit (ECU). The enablement sequence of the drive line is selected to ensure smooth take-off can be achieved.”, [016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Willing to incorporate the teachings of Jerger because Willing would be more efficient and versatile should it delay vehicle takeoff till the exhaust cat reaches a required temp, for emissions sake, as done in Jerger (“In some example embodiments, the postponement of enablement of the drive line permits a high idle speed to be maintained for a longer period, thus ensuring a greater quantity of hot exhaust gas streams through the catalytic converter before idle speed is reduced to normal, and with the consequence that the catalyst temperature is raised more quickly to the operating point.”, [014])
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Willing and Jerger have the limitations of claim 1:
Willing further teaches:
wherein the drive power requirement is a function of at least one of the following: navigation data; vehicle position; user history; ambient temperature of vehicle surroundings; and/or vehicle operating mode. (“After a predefined state of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system has been attained, in particular a specified operating temperature of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system, the drivetrain is operated in a second operating state, wherein the launch prohibition is inactive in the second operating state, such that launching using the internal combustion engine is possible in the second operating state.”, [009]).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Willing and Jerger have the limitations of claim 1:
Willing further teaches:
ascertaining a summed drive power for meeting the drive power requirement, the summed drive power comprising the setpoint internal combustion motor drive power and a setpoint motor drive power, where the setpoint motor drive power is to be provided by an electric machine of the motor vehicle. (“It is considered to be particularly advantageous if the vehicle has an electric motor, wherein launching using the electric motor is possible irrespective of the state of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system.”, [018]).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Willing and Jerger have the limitations of claim 3:
Willing further teaches
wherein the setpoint motor drive power is a function of a state of charge of an energy store of the motor vehicle that is coupled to the electric machine. (“It is considered to be particularly advantageous if the vehicle has an electric motor, wherein launching using the electric motor is possible irrespective of the state of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system.”, [018]).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Willing and Jerger have the limitations of claim 3:
Willing further teaches:
wherein the setpoint motor drive power is a function of a drive strategy of the motor vehicle. (“Described herein is a method and a vehicle that is distinguished by particularly low emissions during launching or starting-off operations. In particular, the method according to aspects of the invention is a method for operating an internal combustion engine during a cold starting-off operation, that is to say a starting-off operation when the internal combustion engine is cold.”, [007]).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Willing and Jerger have the limitations of claim 1:
Willing further teaches:
heating the exhaust aftertreatment system to the predetermined minimum temperature using measures on the internal combustion engine side. (“In particular from the aspect of compliance with future emissions requirements in motor vehicles, it is necessary to avoid operating states of a motor vehicle, in particular operating states of a motor vehicle, in particular of an internal combustion engine, in which high exhaust-gas emissions occur. High emissions, so-called cold emissions, occur in particular during the heating phase of an exhaust-gas aftertreatment system, that is to say a phase in which the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system cannot yet impart its full effect. The level of the cold emissions is highly dependent on the customer's driving style and the heating power of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system.”, [003]).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Willing and Jerger have the limitations of claim 1:
Willing further teaches:
wherein the takeoff delay is a function of an actual temperature of the exhaust aftertreatment system. (“After a predefined state of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system has been attained, in particular a specified operating temperature of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system, the drivetrain is operated in a second operating state, wherein the launch prohibition is inactive in the second operating state, such that launching using the internal combustion engine is possible in the second operating state.”, [010]).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Willing and Jerger have the limitations of claim 1:
Jerger further teaches:
wherein the takeoff delay is determined based on a characteristic map. Examiner broadly interprets this claim consistent with the disclosure to include the meaning that there is a reason, i.,e., say a computer algorithm or “map”, that determines such delay, … (“delaying enablement of said drive line until at least one indication that a driver desires that the vehicle starts moving is detected, so as to prolong duration of said first idle speed; and reducing engine speed from said first idle speed to a second, lower idle speed for drive line enablement subsequent to the delaying.[005]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Willing to incorporate the teachings of Jerger because Willing would be more efficient and versatile should it delay vehicle takeoff till the exhaust cat reaches a required temp, for emissions sake, as done in Jerger (“In some example embodiments, the postponement of enablement of the drive line permits a high idle speed to be maintained for a longer period, thus ensuring a greater quantity of hot exhaust gas streams through the catalytic converter before idle speed is reduced to normal, and with the consequence that the catalyst temperature is raised more quickly to the operating point.”, [014])
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661