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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 17 have been amended. Claims 12 and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 1-11 and 14-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to claims 10 and 12 objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 10 and 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 17 rejection under 35 USC 101 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 7-9, and 12-17 rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 3, 4-6, and 10-11 rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yacoub is not in a similar field of endeavor and that Yacoub fails to teach a regeneration process when an exhaust gas temperature drops below a threshold and that Yacoub fails to teach the ICE is temporarily re-coupled during a DPF regeneration process.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yacoub (20130174536; already of record) discloses of DPF regeneration in paragraphs such as [12], [19], [22], [27], wherein the regeneration may be carried out during normal vehicle operation. Yacoub discloses of decoupling the engine in a filter protection mode in order to prevent or stop unintentional soot combustion. However, Yacoub also discloses of decoupling the engine in order to induce stoichiometric combustion to stabilize the soot combustion rate (filter regeneration) (see Yacoub ¶ 14, 21). Therefore, Yacoub does teach of a filter regeneration process that is within the similar field of endeavor as the claimed limitation.
Yacoub additionally discloses:
“Upon exhaust and/or DPF temperature falling below the threshold and/or the reduced potential or termination of unintentional combustion in the DPF 22, filter protection mode may be deactivated and the engine 2 re-coupled to the wheel drive train” ¶ 23, “Upon return of the DPF and exhaust conditions to a threshold value the engine may actively regenerate the DPF at 314 via a control routine” ¶ 27
Wherein it can be seen that under the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Yacoub teaches of the recoupling of the engine when there is a detected drop below a threshold temperature.
Yacoub additionally discloses:
“The extended use of the electric motor may be aided by the power generated in the engine during stoichiometric combustion” ¶ 27,
“the internal combustion engine may drive the electric generator while in filter protection mode, and may be operated with an output power which approximately corresponds to the maximum power generating capacity of the electric generator” ¶ 26
Wherein it can be seen that under the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Yacoub teaches of recuperating using the electric motor during the engine re-coupling process.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yacoub (20130174536; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Yacoub teaches a method for carrying out a regeneration process of a particulate filter of a motor vehicle, the method comprising (Yacoub: Abstract):
decoupling, in the regeneration process, an internal combustion engine from an output of a powertrain of the motor vehicle (Yacoub: “the vehicle control system may initiate a filter protection mode wherein the internal combustion engine may be decoupled” ¶ 14);
providing, at least partly timely overlapping with the decoupling of the internal combustion engine, vehicle propulsion by at least one electric machine of the motor vehicle (Yacoub: “and the vehicle driven by electric motor alone” ¶ 14, “the electric motor may remain coupled from the wheel drive train if instructed by the control system for efficiency or to initiate the active regeneration of the DPF. Further, in hybrid systems allowing torque to be provided by the engine and electric motor simultaneously, the engine may remain coupled to the wheel drive train throughout the procedural timeline” ¶ 29); and
running the decoupled internal combustion engine (Yacoub: “while the vehicle is in filter protection mode the engine is allowed to continue running” ¶ 14)
wherein, in the regeneration process, the internal combustion engine is temporarily re-coupled based on whether an exhaust gas temperature drops below a threshold temperature (Yacoub: “Upon exhaust and/or DPF temperature falling below the threshold and/or the reduced potential or termination of unintentional combustion in the DPF 22, filter protection mode may be deactivated and the engine 2 re-coupled to the wheel drive train” ¶ 23, “Upon return of the DPF and exhaust conditions to a threshold value the engine may actively regenerate the DPF at 314 via a control routine” ¶ 27), and
wherein, when the internal combustion engine is temporarily re-coupled, at least one electric machine of the motor vehicle is controlled to apply a load to the internal combustion engine in a recuperation mode (Yacoub: “The extended use of the electric motor may be aided by the power generated in the engine during stoichiometric combustion” ¶ 27, “the internal combustion engine may drive the electric generator while in filter protection mode, and may be operated with an output power which approximately corresponds to the maximum power generating capacity of the electric generator” ¶ 26).
Regarding claim 2, Yacoub teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the internal combustion engine is controlled to run continuously during the regeneration process (Yacoub: “While the vehicle is in filter protection mode the engine is allowed to continue running in a steady operating state” ¶ 14).
Regarding claim 7, Yacoub teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle propulsion is controlled to keep the vehicle speed at least substantially constant (Yacoub: “The vehicle propulsion may then continue unhindered via torque provided by the electric motor while the engine operates in filter protection mode conditions” ¶ 26, see also ¶ 21, 23).
Regarding claim 8, Yacoub teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the regeneration process is initiated based on determining that a soot level of the particulate filter exceeds a threshold soot level (Yacoub: “This initiation may be standard or be the result of the degree of soot build-up within the DPF” ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 9, Yacoub teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the regeneration process is initiated based on determining that an exhaust temperature of the motor vehicle exceeds a threshold temperature (Yacoub: “The temperature within the DPF 408 may be determined by sensors in the exhaust system or the DPF itself. DPF temperature may rise until a threshold 406 is reached, at which point the filter protection mode is initiated” ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 14, Yacoub teaches an apparatus for carrying out a regeneration process of a particulate filter of a motor vehicle, the apparatus comprising control circuitry configured to (Yacoub: “the embodiment includes a control system” ¶ 18):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 15¸Yacoub teaches the apparatus of claim 14, further comprising:
interface circuitry configured to receive at least one of an exhaust temperature of the motor vehicle or a soot level of the particulate filter, or both (Yacoub: “the embodiment includes a control system that may receive input from sensors that may include a temperature sensor” ¶ 18, see also ¶ 30),
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8 and 9, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 16, Yacoub teaches a motor vehicle comprising:
the powertrain with the combustion engine and the at least one electric machine (Yacoub: Fig. 1); and
at least one apparatus according to claim 14 (Yacoub: “the embodiment includes a control system” ¶ 18).
Regarding claim 17, Yacoub teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded therein a computer program comprising -computer-executable instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (Yacoub: “the described acts may graphically represent code to be programmed into the computer readable storage medium in the engine control system” ¶ 32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yacoub in view of Wendling et al. (11624303; hereinafter Wendling; already of record).
Regarding claim 3, Yacoub fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the internal combustion engine is controlled to run in an overrun mode when running while decoupled (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Wendling).
While Yacoub remains silent regarding the internal combustion engine is controlled to run in an overrun mode when running while decoupled, in a similar field of endeavor, Wendling teaches the claim limitation of the internal combustion engine running in an overrun mode (Wendling: “the engine's injectors may be shut off during coast-down with the engine operating as an air pump without fuel” Col. 5 Lines 39-41). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the regeneration system of Yacoub so that it also includes the element of running the internal combustion engine in an overrun mode, as taught by Wendling, in order to improve passive filter regeneration (Wendling: Col. 5 Lines 44-56).
Regarding claim 6, Yacoub fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle propulsion is controlled based on an accelerator pedal position (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Wendling).
While Yacoub remains silent regarding the vehicle propulsion is controlled based on an accelerator pedal position, in a similar field of endeavor, Wendling teaches the claim limitation of an accelerator pedal position (Wendling: “The pedal position sensor 110 provides a signal representative of the torque request on the hybrid powertrain 24 and may monitor the position of the operator controlled throttle foot pedal” Col. 8 Lines 45-48). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the regeneration system of Yacoub so that it also includes the element of an accelerator pedal position, as taught by Wendling, in order to improve regeneration evaluation (Wendling: Col 9 Lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 10, Yacoub fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the regeneration process is initiated at least at a predetermined driving speed of the motor vehicle (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Wendling).
While Yacoub remains silent regarding the regeneration process is initiated at least a predetermined driving speed of the motor vehicle, in a similar field of endeavor, Wendling teaches the claim limitation of a predetermined driving speed of the motor vehicle (Wendling: “When an active fault is not present, the process 400 continues to determine 404, such as by the DFCO evaluation module 304 using a signal 316 from the vehicle speed sensor 104, whether the speed of the vehicle 22 is above a calibrated speed” Col. 10 Lines 50-54). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the regeneration system of Yacoub so that it also includes the element of vehicle speed, as taught by Wendling, in order to improve regeneration evaluation (Wendling: Col 10 Lines 55-58).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yacoub in view of DE102017209081A1 (Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft; hereinafter Bartolot; already of record).
Regarding claim 4, Yacoub fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein running the internal combustion engine comprises controlling at least one electric machine of the motor vehicle to run the internal combustion engine (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Bartolot).
While Yacoub remains silent regarding controlling at least one electric machine of the motor vehicle to run the internal combustion engine, in a similar field of endeavor, Bartolot teaches the claim limitation of controlling the electric machine to run the internal combustion engine (Bartolot: “The control unit may be configured to cause the electric machine to drive the internal combustion engine without injecting fuel” ¶ 24). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the regeneration system of Yacoub so that it also includes the element of running the internal combustion engine with the electric machine, as taught by Bartolot, in order to improve filter regeneration when ideal conditions are met (Bartolot: ¶ 25).
Regarding claim 5, Yacoub fails to teach the method of claim 4, wherein the at least one electric machine is controlled to motor the internal combustion engine with a certain engine speed (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Bartolot).
While Yacoub remains silent regarding one electric machine is controlled to motor the internal combustion engine with a certain engine speed, in a similar field of endeavor, Bartolot teaches the claim limitation of the electric machine motoring the internal combustion engine with a certain engine speed (Bartolot: “electric machine can be caused to drag the combustion engine (without injection) (i.e. the electric machine can be caused to provide a drag torque for the combustion engine). Consequently, the electric machine can be caused to provide the drive torque plus the drag torque. This can cause oxygen to be pumped into the exhaust system” ¶ 25, see also ¶ 24, 26, 27). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the regeneration system of Yacoub so that it also includes the element of driving the internal combustion engine with the electric machine at a constant speed, as taught by Bartolot, in order to improve filter regeneration when ideal conditions are met (Bartolot: ¶ 26, 27).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yacoub in view of Wendling as applied to claims 3, 6, and 10 above, and further in view of Bartolot.
Regarding claim 11, Yacoub in view of Wendling fails to teach the method of claim 10, wherein the regeneration process is initiated with a cruise control of the motor vehicle activated (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Bartolot).
While Yacoub in view of Wendling remains silent regarding the regeneration process is initiated with a cruise control of the motor vehicle activated, in a similar field of endeavor, Bartolot teaches the claim limitation of regeneration initiated when cruise control is activated (Bartolot: “The control unit may be configured to cause the electric machine to drive the internal combustion engine without injecting fuel. In particular, the control unit can be configured to determine that the required drive torque of the vehicle is so low that the drive torque of the vehicle can be provided by the electric machine alone (e.g. B. during constant travel, i.e. during travel at a constant speed)” ¶ 24). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the regeneration system of Yacoub so that it also includes the element of initiating regeneration with cruise control, as taught by Bartolot, in order to improve filter regeneration when ideal conditions are met (Bartolot: ¶ 26, 27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Upadhyay et al. (20180340785) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of filter regeneration.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663