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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of presented in the previous office action, dated 04/14/2026, have been fully considered.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections of the previous action;
Applicants’ arguments have been fully reviewed but have been found to be unpersuasive at this time. The present application is rejected under 101, as stated in MPEP 2106.049(a)(2)(II), for depicting a concept related to: a mental process (i.e. … evaluating) can be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. determining/comparing data values, diagnosing a crankcase).
Additionally, in response to applicant’s amendments to include “a processor” integral to the claim(s), it is noted that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The invention as claimed recites a method for a mental processes that are applied by a generic device in the field of vehicle monitoring.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to “similarity’’;
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that in comparing two values the result of comparison contains a difference and a similarity between the two values. Furthermore, please see newly introduced prior art reference Gerlach for further disclosure regarding a comparison within the field of art.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to Takita;
Takita is not being relied upon for diagnosing a crankcase, but merely the method of utilizing a “pressure difference sensor 45 for detecting a pressure difference ΔP between upstream and downstream sides”. A method that may be useful in any system wherein pressure signals during operation may be monitored. Furthermore, the arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, please see Gerlach for more information.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to “setpoint range”;
It should be noted that Jentz discloses a tolerance band, furthermore newly cited reference Gerlach discloses a consideration for comparing two pressure signals to a reference value. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that a system may be modified such that a signal pressure is compared to a setpoint range/tolerance band.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to Thompson;
It should be noted that Thompson is merely being referenced for teaching a disclosure for “waveforms” within the field of art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1 and 7 are directed to a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 recites abstract limitations, which are emphasized (bolded) below:
1. (currently amended) A method for diagnosing a crankcase system, the method comprising:
determining of a signal waveform of an intake pressure, via an intake pressure sensor, in an intake area of a crankcase;
determining a signal waveform of a second pressure, via a second pressure sensor, in an area of the crankcase downstream of the intake area;
calculating, via the processor, a similarity between the signal waveform of the intake pressure and the signal waveform of the second pressure; and
comparing, via the processor, the similarity to a similarity setpoint range,
wherein a deviation of the similarity from the similarity setpoint range indicates an improper condition of the crankcase system.
7. (original) A crankcase system comprising:
a crank case having a crank block
an intake pressure sensor configured to determine a signal waveform of an intake pressure in an intake area of a crankcase;
a second pressure sensor to determine a signal waveform of a second pressure in an area of the crankcase downstream of the intake area; and
a processor to calculate a similarity between the signal waveform of the intake pressure and the signal waveform of the second pressure and to compare the similarity with a similarity setpoint range,
wherein a deviation of the similarity from the similarity setpoint range indicates an improper condition of the crankcase system.
The providing limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper to include the analysis of collected data. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim(s) recite additional elements of: which are emphasized (underlined) below:
1. (currently amended) A method for diagnosing a crankcase system, the method comprising:
determining of a signal waveform of an intake pressure, via an intake pressure sensor, in an intake area of a crankcase;
determining a signal waveform of a second pressure, via a second pressure sensor, in an area of the crankcase downstream of the intake area;
calculating, via the processor, a similarity between the signal waveform of the intake pressure and the signal waveform of the second pressure; and
comparing, via the processor, the similarity to a similarity setpoint range,
wherein a deviation of the similarity from the similarity setpoint range indicates an improper condition of the crankcase system.
7. (original) A crankcase system comprising:
a crank case having a crank block
an intake pressure sensor configured to determine a signal waveform of an intake pressure in an intake area of a crankcase;
a second pressure sensor to determine a signal waveform of a second pressure in an area of the crankcase downstream of the intake area; and
a processor to calculate a similarity between the signal waveform of the intake pressure and the signal waveform of the second pressure and to compare the similarity with a similarity setpoint range,
wherein a deviation of the similarity from the similarity setpoint range indicates an improper condition of the crankcase system.
The characterization of;
… a crankcase system comprising
… a crank case having a crank block
amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
(see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s);
… an intake pressure sensor configured to
… a second pressure sensor to
… a processor to
… via the processor
amounts to merely indicating functions of the plurality of sensors and the processor are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, alternatively the limitation(s) amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea.
(see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The functions of the additional element(s);
… wherein a deviation of the similarity from the similarity setpoint range indicates an improper condition of the crankcase system
amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The functions (e.g. monitoring/receiving/transmitting/collecting/storage) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering and transmitting data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to the functions a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more.
(See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).)
As discussed above, the characterization of the claim(s), as discussed above, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally/alternatively, with respect to the (e.g., to receive, store, transmit data), the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collecting, receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, prior art Kronenberg (US 2010/0082179 A1), discloses that various combinations of sensors, detectors, processors, cameras, and other monitoring means known in the art can be used to monitor driving parameters of vehicles (see [0044]).
Moreover, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 8-12; recites limitation(s) which include(s) under its broadest reasonable interpretation, further characterizes the abstract idea (e.g. calculations, determinations, locations of sensors and system) and does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or mount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jentz US-20200400050-A1 and Thompson US-20140182548-A1 in view of Gerlach US-20080264041-A1.
1. (currently amended) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses A method for diagnosing a crankcase system, the method comprising:
(Jentz [0017] a diagnostic method, in one example, is carried out in a positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system including a pressure sensor located on a clean side of an oil separator coupled to a crankcase housing. The diagnostic method may include monitoring the sensor)
(Jentz [FIG.8] Step 810)
determining of a ***signal*** [0029] of an intake pressure, via an intake pressure sensor, in an intake area of a crankcase ([FIG.1] 87);
(Jentz [0029] One or more additional pressure and/or flow sensors may be coupled to the crankcase ventilation system at alternate locations. For example, a barometric pressure sensor (BP sensor) 57 may be coupled to intake passage 13, upstream of air filter 54, for providing an estimate of barometric pressure. In some embodiments, a pressure sensor (not shown) may be coupled in intake passage 13 downstream of air filter 54 and upstream of compressor 50 to provide an estimate of the compressor inlet pressure (CIP). Further still, a pressure sensor 59 may be coupled downstream of compressor 50 for providing an estimate of a throttle inlet pressure (TIP). Any of the above-mentioned pressure sensors may be absolute pressure sensor or gauge sensors. Additionally, the pressure sensor 87 may be positioned in the intake manifold 42 to provide a manifold pressure. A pressure sensor 63 may also be included in the crankcase 28. However, in other examples, the crankcase pressure may be inferred from other sensor signals.)
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
determining a ***signal*** [0029] of a second pressure, via a second pressure sensor, in an area of the crankcase downstream of the intake area ([FIG.1] 77, 63);
(Jentz [0029] One or more additional pressure and/or flow sensors may be coupled to the crankcase ventilation system at alternate locations. For example, a barometric pressure sensor (BP sensor) 57 may be coupled to intake passage 13, upstream of air filter 54, for providing an estimate of barometric pressure. In some embodiments, a pressure sensor (not shown) may be coupled in intake passage 13 downstream of air filter 54 and upstream of compressor 50 to provide an estimate of the compressor inlet pressure (CIP). Further still, a pressure sensor 59 may be coupled downstream of compressor 50 for providing an estimate of a throttle inlet pressure (TIP). Any of the above-mentioned pressure sensors may be absolute pressure sensor or gauge sensors. Additionally, the pressure sensor 87 may be positioned in the intake manifold 42 to provide a manifold pressure. A pressure sensor 63 may also be included in the crankcase 28. However, in other examples, the crankcase pressure may be inferred from other sensor signals.)
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
Calculating, via a processor [0038], a ***result based on*** the ***signal*** [0029] of the intake pressure and the ***signal*** [0029] of the second pressure; and
(Jentz [0038] Instructions for carrying out method 400 and the rest of the methods described herein may be executed by a controller (e.g., controller processor) based on instructions stored on non-transitory memory of the controller and in conjunction with signals received from sensors of the engine system, such as the sensors described above with reference to FIG. 1. The controller may employ engine actuators of the engine system to adjust engine operation, according to the methods described below.)
(Jentz [0029] a ventilation line breach may be determined using a calibrated fault threshold that may be a function of barometric pressure and/or ambient temperature, for example, compared against the integrated pressure sensor data. For example, if the integrated pressure sensor value is above the fault threshold it may be determined that the ventilation line is breached. However, other diagnostic calculations have been contemplated.)
(Jentz [0104, 0112] determining the PCV system breach may include determining if the pressure of the pressure sensor is greater than a fault threshold and where the fault threshold is a determined based on barometric pressure in the intake manifold and/or ambient temperature… may be determined based on: a crankcase pressure and/or a pressure in the intake manifold; or a pressure in the intake conduit upstream of the compressor.)
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
Gerlach US-20080264041-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a determining a fault in a system by calculating “…a similarity between the …intake pressure and …the second pressure”;
(Gerlach [0018] a compressed air pressure signal 21 supplied by a compressed air pressure sensor 20, and a reagent medium pressure signal 23 supplied by a reagent medium pressure sensor 22.)
(Gerlach [0044] The diagnosis operations are controlled by timer 52 as a function of internal combustion engine operating signal 18 and dosing valve triggering signal 31. Between first and second times t1, t2, corresponding to first time interval t8, timer 52 delivers first time signal 53 to first comparator 50, which thereupon checks pressure signal 21, 23 as to whether resting pressure 100 is at least approximately present. First comparator 50 compares pressure signal 21, 23 to the reference value, supplied by first switchable reference 60, that corresponds e.g. to ambient atmospheric pressure. First tolerance range 101 is defined in such a way that permissible tolerances do not cause first comparator 50 to supply first fault signal 61 because the reference value is exceeded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a similarity between the intake pressure and the second pressure with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gerlach, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of system components by monitoring pressure values at an intake and exhaust side of a component, enabling a system to diagnosis malfunctions by monitoring pressure measurements.
Comparing, via the processor [0038] the ***calculated results to a data tolerance*** range,
(Jentz [0038] Instructions for carrying out method 400 and the rest of the methods described herein may be executed by a controller (e.g., controller processor) based on instructions stored on non-transitory memory of the controller and in conjunction with signals received from sensors of the engine system, such as the sensors described above with reference to FIG. 1. The controller may employ engine actuators of the engine system to adjust engine operation, according to the methods described below.)
(Jentz [0080-81] 808 the method may include determining fault tolerances for the modeled pressure on the clean side of the oil separator. The fault tolerances indicate expected errors in the modeled pressure… the tolerance bands may be calculated using the set of equations provided below...)
(Jentz [0090-91] the diagnostic method may set a fault when an integration of the measured pressure error is not within a tolerance of the modeled pressure… In another diagnostic approach, the pressure from the pressure sensor on the clean side of the oil separator may be continuously measured and the modeled pressure may be continuously calculated. When the measured pressure is outside the fault tolerance bands the error is accumulated and when the measured pressure is inside the fault tolerance bands the error is subtracted... )
Gerlach US-20080264041-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a determining a fault in a system by calculating “…comparing the similarity to a setpoint…”;
(Gerlach [0044] The diagnosis operations are controlled by timer 52 as a function of internal combustion engine operating signal 18 and dosing valve triggering signal 31. Between first and second times t1, t2, corresponding to first time interval t8, timer 52 delivers first time signal 53 to first comparator 50, which thereupon checks pressure signal 21, 23 as to whether resting pressure 100 is at least approximately present. First comparator 50 compares pressure signal 21, 23 to the reference value, supplied by first switchable reference 60, that corresponds e.g. to ambient atmospheric pressure. First tolerance range 101 is defined in such a way that permissible tolerances do not cause first comparator 50 to supply first fault signal 61 because the reference value is exceeded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to comparing the similarity to a setpoint with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gerlach, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of system components by monitoring pressure values at an intake and exhaust side of a component, enabling a system to diagnosis malfunctions by monitoring pressure measurements.
wherein a deviation of ***the calculated results from the data tolerance*** range indicates an improper condition of the crankcase system.
(Jentz [0090-91] the diagnostic method may set a fault when an integration of the measured pressure error is not within a tolerance of the modeled pressure… In another diagnostic approach, the pressure from the pressure sensor on the clean side of the oil separator may be continuously measured and the modeled pressure may be continuously calculated. When the measured pressure is outside the fault tolerance bands the error is accumulated and when the measured pressure is inside the fault tolerance bands the error is subtracted... )
(Jentz [FIG.8] Step 810)
Gerlach US-20080264041-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a determining a fault in a system by calculating “…a similarity between the …intake pressure and …the second pressure”;
(Gerlach [0018] a compressed air pressure signal 21 supplied by a compressed air pressure sensor 20, and a reagent medium pressure signal 23 supplied by a reagent medium pressure sensor 22.)
(Gerlach [0044] The diagnosis operations are controlled by timer 52 as a function of internal combustion engine operating signal 18 and dosing valve triggering signal 31. Between first and second times t1, t2, corresponding to first time interval t8, timer 52 delivers first time signal 53 to first comparator 50, which thereupon checks pressure signal 21, 23 as to whether resting pressure 100 is at least approximately present. First comparator 50 compares pressure signal 21, 23 to the reference value, supplied by first switchable reference 60, that corresponds e.g. to ambient atmospheric pressure. First tolerance range 101 is defined in such a way that permissible tolerances do not cause first comparator 50 to supply first fault signal 61 because the reference value is exceeded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a similarity between the intake pressure and the second pressure with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gerlach, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of system components by monitoring pressure values at an intake and exhaust side of a component, enabling a system to diagnosis malfunctions by monitoring pressure measurements.
2. (currently amended) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the calculation comprises at least a calculation [0029] ****.
(Jentz [0029] a ventilation line breach may be determined using a calibrated fault threshold that may be a function of barometric pressure and/or ambient temperature, for example, compared against the integrated pressure sensor data. For example, if the integrated pressure sensor value is above the fault threshold it may be determined that the ventilation line is breached. However, other diagnostic calculations have been contemplated.)
(Jentz [0104, 0112] determining the PCV system breach may include determining if the pressure of the pressure sensor is greater than a fault threshold and where the fault threshold is a determined based on barometric pressure in the intake manifold and/or ambient temperature… may be determined based on: a crankcase pressure and/or a pressure in the intake manifold; or a pressure in the intake conduit upstream of the compressor.)
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…a calculation of a correlation or a calculation of a covariance and/or linear regression …of the pressure …signal”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
(Thompson [0069] These points are extrapolated with a linear line to make up the waveform. whose curve essentially corresponds to the signal waveform of the intake pressure and the signal waveform of the second pressure)
(Thompson [0090-95; FIG.40-41] FIG. 40 is a schematic example of pressure waveforms 1100 for an engine… represent exhaust or intake pressures that are measured for an engine during operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a calculation of a correlation or a calculation of a covariance and/or linear regression of a pressure signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of a relationship between signal changes over time.
Gerlach US-20080264041-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a determining a fault in a system by calculating “…a calculation of a correlation or a calculation of a covariance … between the signal waveform of the intake pressure and the signal waveform of the second pressure”;
(Gerlach [0018] a compressed air pressure signal 21 supplied by a compressed air pressure sensor 20, and a reagent medium pressure signal 23 supplied by a reagent medium pressure sensor 22.)
(Gerlach [0044] The diagnosis operations are controlled by timer 52 as a function of internal combustion engine operating signal 18 and dosing valve triggering signal 31. Between first and second times t1, t2, corresponding to first time interval t8, timer 52 delivers first time signal 53 to first comparator 50, which thereupon checks pressure signal 21, 23 as to whether resting pressure 100 is at least approximately present. First comparator 50 compares pressure signal 21, 23 to the reference value, supplied by first switchable reference 60, that corresponds e.g. to ambient atmospheric pressure. First tolerance range 101 is defined in such a way that permissible tolerances do not cause first comparator 50 to supply first fault signal 61 because the reference value is exceeded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a calculation of a correlation or a calculation of a covariance … between the signal waveform of the intake pressure and the signal waveform of the second pressure with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gerlach, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of system components by monitoring pressure values at an intake and exhaust side of a component, enabling a system to diagnosis malfunctions by monitoring pressure measurements.
4. (currently amended) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the ***signal*** of the intake pressure in the intake area is carried out in at least one intake manifold downstream of a throttle or upstream of the throttle.
(Jentz [0112] determining the PCV system breach may include sampling the pressure sensor and where a length of the sampling of the pressure sensor may be determined based on: a crankcase pressure and/or a pressure in the intake manifold; or a pressure in the intake conduit upstream of the compressor.)
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
5. (currently amended) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the ***signal*** of the second pressure [FIG.1; e.g. 63, 77] in the area located downstream of the intake area is carried out at least in a bleed line of the crankcase, in a crankcase block of the crankcase or in a ventilation line of the crankcase.
(Jentz [0029; FIG.1] A pressure sensor 63 may also be included in the crankcase 28)
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
6. (currently amended) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein at least the calculation of ***results*** takes place when a calculation condition is fulfilled at least for the intake pressure or the second pressure [0104, 0112], or when the ***signal*** of at least the intake pressure or the second pressure comprises only values within a predetermined value range,
wherein the calculation condition is when an internal combustion engine having the crankcase system is in operation and during a boost pressure build-up [0027], a boost pressure maintenance or a boost pressure reduction.
(Jentz [0104, 0112] determining the PCV system breach may include determining if the pressure of the pressure sensor is greater than a fault threshold and where the fault threshold is a determined based on barometric pressure in the intake manifold and/or ambient temperature… may be determined based on: a crankcase pressure and/or a pressure in the intake manifold; or a pressure in the intake conduit upstream of the compressor.)
(Jentz [0044] The determination may also use a threshold fault value that may be a function of boost pressure and/or ambient temperature, for example.)
(Jentz [0017] The diagnostic method may include monitoring the sensor while, for example, the engine is boosted via a compressor and a PCV valve is metering flow to the crankcase)
Gerlach US-20080264041-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a determining a fault in a system by calculating “…a similarity between the …intake pressure and …the second pressure”;
(Gerlach [0018] a compressed air pressure signal 21 supplied by a compressed air pressure sensor 20, and a reagent medium pressure signal 23 supplied by a reagent medium pressure sensor 22.)
(Gerlach [0044] The diagnosis operations are controlled by timer 52 as a function of internal combustion engine operating signal 18 and dosing valve triggering signal 31. Between first and second times t1, t2, corresponding to first time interval t8, timer 52 delivers first time signal 53 to first comparator 50, which thereupon checks pressure signal 21, 23 as to whether resting pressure 100 is at least approximately present. First comparator 50 compares pressure signal 21, 23 to the reference value, supplied by first switchable reference 60, that corresponds e.g. to ambient atmospheric pressure. First tolerance range 101 is defined in such a way that permissible tolerances do not cause first comparator 50 to supply first fault signal 61 because the reference value is exceeded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a similarity between the intake pressure and the second pressure with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gerlach, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of system components by monitoring pressure values at an intake and exhaust side of a component, enabling a system to diagnosis malfunctions by monitoring pressure measurements.
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
10. (currently amended) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program thereon, that when executed by a processor of a crankcase system, causes the processor to execute the method according to claim 1.
(Jentz [0033] Controller 12 is shown in FIG. 1 as a microcomputer, including microprocessor unit 108, input/output ports 110, an electronic storage medium for executable programs and ... Storage medium read-only memory 112 can be programmed with computer readable data representing instructions executable by processor 108 for performing the methods described below)
11. (new) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising triggering an action upon detection of the deviation.
(Jentz [0093] On the other hand, if it is determined that a fault condition is occurring (YES at 810) the method advances to 814 where the method includes implementing a fault condition mitigating action. For example, the amount of boost generated by a compressor may be reduced, engine speed may be reduced via throttle or fuel injector adjustment, etc. The mitigating action may be any action designed to reduce the impact of the fault condition on the PCV system.)
12. (new) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses The method according to claim 11, wherein the action includes at least one of switching off an internal combustion engine that has the crankcase system, alerting a user to switch off the internal combustion engine, preventing charging of a turbocharger, reducing a speed, a torque or an output of the internal combustion engine, reducing a remaining driving time or transmitting information regarding the improper condition to a vehicle manufacturer or repair shop.
(Jentz [0093] On the other hand, if it is determined that a fault condition is occurring (YES at 810) the method advances to 814 where the method includes implementing a fault condition mitigating action. For example, the amount of boost generated by a compressor may be reduced, engine speed may be reduced via throttle or fuel injector adjustment, etc. The mitigating action may be any action designed to reduce the impact of the fault condition on the PCV system.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jentz US-20200400050-A1 Thompson US-20140182548-A1 and Gerlach US-20080264041-A1 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jentz US-11220939-B1.
3. (original) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the calculation ***comprises*** carrying out ***an*** analysis [0029].
(Jentz [0029] a ventilation line breach may be determined using a calibrated fault threshold that may be a function of barometric pressure and/or ambient temperature, for example, compared against the integrated pressure sensor data. For example, if the integrated pressure sensor value is above the fault threshold it may be determined that the ventilation line is breached. However, other diagnostic calculations have been contemplated.)
(Jentz [0104, 0112] determining the PCV system breach may include determining if the pressure of the pressure sensor is greater than a fault threshold and where the fault threshold is a determined based on barometric pressure in the intake manifold and/or ambient temperature… may be determined based on: a crankcase pressure and/or a pressure in the intake manifold; or a pressure in the intake conduit upstream of the compressor.)
Jentz US-11220939-B1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a calculation comprising “…wherein the calculation comprises at least one calculation of a linear function whose curve essentially corresponds to the signal waveform of the intake pressure and the signal waveform of the second pressure or comprises carrying out a regression analysis”;
(Jentz [c.15 l.25] a method for a crankcase ventilation system, comprising: indicating a breach in the crankcase ventilation system based on a regression of pressure measurements of a crankcase vent tube pressure over an entire range of operating engine air flows and comparison of regressed pressure measurements to expected crankcase vent tube pressure over the entire range of operating engine air flows
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include wherein the calculation comprises carrying out a regression analysis with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Jentz, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of system components by monitoring pressure values at an intake and exhaust side of a component, enabling a system to diagnosis malfunctions by monitoring pressure measurements.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jentz US-20200400050-A1 and Thompson US-20140182548-A1 in view of Gerlach US-20080264041-A1.
7. (original) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses A crankcase system comprising:
A crankcase having a crankcase block [FIG.1];
PNG
media_image1.png
384
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jentz: FIG.1
an intake pressure sensor configured to determine a ***signal*** of an intake pressure in an intake area of the crankcase;
(Jentz [0134] a PCV system diagnostic method)
(Jentz [0029] One or more additional pressure and/or flow sensors may be coupled to the crankcase ventilation system at alternate locations. For example, a barometric pressure sensor (BP sensor) 57 may be coupled to intake passage 13, upstream of air filter 54, for providing an estimate of barometric pressure. In some embodiments, a pressure sensor (not shown) may be coupled in intake passage 13 downstream of air filter 54 and upstream of compressor 50 to provide an estimate of the compressor inlet pressure (CIP). Further still, a pressure sensor 59 may be coupled downstream of compressor 50 for providing an estimate of a throttle inlet pressure (TIP). Any of the above-mentioned pressure sensors may be absolute pressure sensor or gauge sensors. Additionally, the pressure sensor 87 may be positioned in the intake manifold 42 to provide a manifold pressure. A pressure sensor 63 may also be included in the crankcase 28. However, in other examples, the crankcase pressure may be inferred from other sensor signals.)
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
a second pressure sensor to determine a ***signal*** [0029] of a second pressure in an area of the crankcase downstream of the intake area ([FIG.1] 77, 63); and
(Jentz [0029] One or more additional pressure and/or flow sensors may be coupled to the crankcase ventilation system at alternate locations. For example, a barometric pressure sensor (BP sensor) 57 may be coupled to intake passage 13, upstream of air filter 54, for providing an estimate of barometric pressure. In some embodiments, a pressure sensor (not shown) may be coupled in intake passage 13 downstream of air filter 54 and upstream of compressor 50 to provide an estimate of the compressor inlet pressure (CIP). Further still, a pressure sensor 59 may be coupled downstream of compressor 50 for providing an estimate of a throttle inlet pressure (TIP). Any of the above-mentioned pressure sensors may be absolute pressure sensor or gauge sensors. Additionally, the pressure sensor 87 may be positioned in the intake manifold 42 to provide a manifold pressure. A pressure sensor 63 may also be included in the crankcase 28. However, in other examples, the crankcase pressure may be inferred from other sensor signals.)
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
a processor [0033] to calculate a ***result based on*** the ***signal*** of the intake pressure and the ***signal*** of the second pressure [0029, 0112] and to compare the ***result*** with a ***data*** setpoint range [0080, 0090],
(Jentz [0033] Controller 12 is shown in FIG. 1 as a microcomputer, including microprocessor unit 108, input/output ports 110… Storage medium read-only memory 112 can be programmed with computer readable data representing instructions executable by processor 108)
(Jentz [0029] a ventilation line breach may be determined using a calibrated fault threshold that may be a function of barometric pressure and/or ambient temperature, for example, compared against the integrated pressure sensor data. For example, if the integrated pressure sensor value is above the fault threshold it may be determined that the ventilation line is breached. However, other diagnostic calculations have been contemplated.)
(Jentz [0104, 0112] determining the PCV system breach may include determining if the pressure of the pressure sensor is greater than a fault threshold and where the fault threshold is a determined based on barometric pressure in the intake manifold and/or ambient temperature… may be determined based on: a crankcase pressure and/or a pressure in the intake manifold; or a pressure in the intake conduit upstream of the compressor.)
(Jentz [0080-81] 808 the method may include determining fault tolerances for the modeled pressure on the clean side of the oil separator. The fault tolerances indicate expected errors in the modeled pressure… the tolerance bands may be calculated using the set of equations provided below...)
(Jentz [0090-91] the diagnostic method may set a fault when an integration of the measured pressure error is not within a tolerance of the modeled pressure… In another diagnostic approach, the pressure from the pressure sensor on the clean side of the oil separator may be continuously measured and the modeled pressure may be continuously calculated. When the measured pressure is outside the fault tolerance bands the error is accumulated and when the measured pressure is inside the fault tolerance bands the error is subtracted... )
Thompson US-20140182548-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a signal “…waveform”;
(Thompson [0004, 0010] The control module is configured to obtain pressure waveforms representative of the airflow pressures in the common airflow pathway as measured by the pressure sensor and to divide the pressure waveforms into waveform segments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a waveform signal with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Thompson, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of signal magnitude changes over time.
Gerlach US-20080264041-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a determining a fault in a system by calculating “…a similarity between the …intake pressure and …the second pressure”;
(Gerlach [0018] a compressed air pressure signal 21 supplied by a compressed air pressure sensor 20, and a reagent medium pressure signal 23 supplied by a reagent medium pressure sensor 22.)
(Gerlach [0044] The diagnosis operations are controlled by timer 52 as a function of internal combustion engine operating signal 18 and dosing valve triggering signal 31. Between first and second times t1, t2, corresponding to first time interval t8, timer 52 delivers first time signal 53 to first comparator 50, which thereupon checks pressure signal 21, 23 as to whether resting pressure 100 is at least approximately present. First comparator 50 compares pressure signal 21, 23 to the reference value, supplied by first switchable reference 60, that corresponds e.g. to ambient atmospheric pressure. First tolerance range 101 is defined in such a way that permissible tolerances do not cause first comparator 50 to supply first fault signal 61 because the reference value is exceeded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a similarity between the intake pressure and the second pressure with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gerlach, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of system components by monitoring pressure values at an intake and exhaust side of a component, enabling a system to diagnosis malfunctions by monitoring pressure measurements.
wherein a deviation of the ***calculated results*** from the ***data*** setpoint range indicates an improper condition of the crankcase system.
(Jentz [0090-91] the diagnostic method may set a fault when an integration of the measured pressure error is not within a tolerance of the modeled pressure… In another diagnostic approach, the pressure from the pressure sensor on the clean side of the oil separator may be continuously measured and the modeled pressure may be continuously calculated. When the measured pressure is outside the fault tolerance bands the error is accumulated and when the measured pressure is inside the fault tolerance bands the error is subtracted... )
(Jentz [FIG.8] Step 810)
Gerlach US-20080264041-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a determining a fault in a system by calculating “…a similarity between the …intake pressure and …the second pressure”;
(Gerlach [0018] a compressed air pressure signal 21 supplied by a compressed air pressure sensor 20, and a reagent medium pressure signal 23 supplied by a reagent medium pressure sensor 22.)
(Gerlach [0044] The diagnosis operations are controlled by timer 52 as a function of internal combustion engine operating signal 18 and dosing valve triggering signal 31. Between first and second times t1, t2, corresponding to first time interval t8, timer 52 delivers first time signal 53 to first comparator 50, which thereupon checks pressure signal 21, 23 as to whether resting pressure 100 is at least approximately present. First comparator 50 compares pressure signal 21, 23 to the reference value, supplied by first switchable reference 60, that corresponds e.g. to ambient atmospheric pressure. First tolerance range 101 is defined in such a way that permissible tolerances do not cause first comparator 50 to supply first fault signal 61 because the reference value is exceeded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Jentz to include a similarity between the intake pressure and the second pressure with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Gerlach, for the benefit of providing a means for representing and analyzing the behavior of system components by monitoring pressure values at an intake and exhaust side of a component, enabling a system to diagnosis malfunctions by monitoring pressure measurements.
8. (currently amended) The limitation(s) are similar in scope to those disclosed in the system of claim(s) 7 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see the rejection in re claim(s) 7.
9. (original) Jentz US-20200400050-A1 discloses A vehicle comprising at least one crankcase system according to claim 7.
(Jentz [0008] FIG. 1 shows a partial engine view of a positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system in accordance with the disclosure.)
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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 on (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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights