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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillo et al (US 10,273,874 hereinafter “Santillo”) in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2018/0245529 hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
In regards to claim 1:
Santillo teaches a system, comprising: a processing circuit comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors (22), the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processing circuit to: receive information indicative of an observed state of a vehicle system of a vehicle from a sensor of the vehicle (Col 11, Lines 35-60 recites “The controller may be configured with computer readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory for: estimating actual and predicted engine operating conditions for an upcoming segment of vehicle travel based on the one or more inputs retrieved at the navigation system; calculating a compressor outlet temperature profile for the upcoming segment of vehicle travel based on the estimated actual and predicted engine operating conditions”), the vehicle system including a fuel system and an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system, the observed state relating to operation of the EGR system (Col 12, Lines 54-64 recites “At 302, the method 300 comprises estimating and/or measuring vehicle operating conditions, including current engine operating conditions. The estimated conditions may include, for example, engine speed, driver demanded torque, which may be estimated based on the position of an accelerator pedal as explained above with reference to FIG. 2, ambient conditions (ambient temperature, barometric pressure, ambient humidity, etc.), EGR level, engine temperature, exhaust catalyst conditions (such as catalyst temperature and oxygen loading), fuel level, fuel octane of available fuel(s), etc.”); determine a predictive state of the vehicle system over a prediction horizon based on the observed state of the vehicle system (Step 304 recites predicting future driver demanded torque requests based on one or more of road information, engine torque history, vehicle operator characteristics, and vehicle information and Col 11, Lines 35-60 recites “calculating a compressor outlet temperature profile for the upcoming segment of vehicle travel based on the estimated actual and predicted engine operating conditions”); determine one or more constraints for the vehicle system; execute a control problem based on the predictive state of the vehicle system and the one or more constraints for the vehicle system over the prediction horizon (Steps 306-310 recite generating estimates to solve predicted problems); determine a plurality of control inputs for the vehicle system based on the executed control problem; and command the fuel system of the vehicle based on at least one of the determined plurality of control inputs (Figure 3 shows a logic sequence wherein a constraint such as future drive demanded torque is determined (302 and 304), the controller executes a control problem to determine a predictive state of the vehicle over the prediction horizon (306), determine a plurality of inputs for the vehicle based on the control problem (310)), the command structured to control at least one of a start of injection with at least one cylinder of an engine, a fuel flow rate, or a rail pressure for a common rail coupled to at least one fuel injector of the vehicle (Col 5, Lines 41-67 recites “Specifically, the controller 114 may estimate a future fuel injection profile for the future horizon. In this way, the controller 114 may estimate one or more future fuel injection profiles for one or more upcoming potential vehicle routes, where the estimated future fuel injection profiles may consider system constraints such as an outlet temperature of a turbocharger compressor. In this way, a more accurate estimate of fuel economy along two or more future routes may be obtained, and the controller 114 may select a more fuel efficient route to a desired location.”, and “The future engine operating conditions may include…fuel injection amount”, wherein the fuel injection amount is based on a fuel flow rate, a fuel timing, and rail pressure, wherein one or both must be controlled to adjust a fuel injection amount, for example such as increasing fuel injected can be done by maintaining a fuel flow rate for a longer duration or increasing the flow rate for the same duration).
Santillo does teach the plurality of control inputs including the opening degree of an EGR valve (Col 27, Lines 50-56) but does not teach the plurality of control inputs including at least a target EGR flow rate value.
Matsumoto teaches a target EGR flow rate value (Paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to add to the plurality of control inputs of Santillo to include the control of the EGR valve based on a target EGR flow rate value as taught by Matsumoto in order to achieve a target EGR amount, wherein having the desired EGR amount based on vehicle operating conditions can produce desired outcomes such as but not limited to appropriate suppression of decrease in engine output and deterioration of combustion stability, suppressing heat damage, reduction of pumping loss, improvement of fuel efficiency, and suppressing knocking (Paragraph [0085] of Matsumoto).
In regards to claim 2:
Santillo teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the processing circuit to: compare sensor information received after controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the at least one of the determined plurality of control inputs relative to a desired set point; update a control-oriented model in response to the comparison; and control the vehicle system using the updated control-oriented model (Figure 3 shows in step 302 initial operating conditions are determined, an estimate of future operating conditions are generated in step 306, and the engine operating conditions being adjusted in response to the comparison in step 310).
In regards to claim 4:
Santillo teaches the one or more constraints includes at least one of a maximum allowed engine torque (Col 22, Lines 21-26).
In regards to claim 5:
Santillo teaches the vehicle system further includes a turbocharger (222), wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the processing circuit to control operation of the turbocharger based on at least one of the determined plurality of control inputs (Col 22, Lines 21-55 recites “Thus, based on how the future engine output torque may be limited over the future horizon to maintain one or more of the compressor outlet temperature, intake conduit temperature, and compressor speed below respective thresholds, estimates of future engine operating conditions may be adjusted to compensate for the adjusted engine torque profile over the future horizon”).
In regards to claim 6:
Santillo teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the processing circuit to: receive fleet information from other vehicles; and utilize the fleet information to update a control-oriented model (Col 4, Lines 24-49).
In regards to claim 7:
Santillo teaches an apparatus for a vehicle, comprising: a processing circuit comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors (22), the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processing circuit to: receive information indicative of an observed state of a vehicle system of a vehicle from a sensor of the vehicle (Col 11, Lines 35-60 recites “The controller may be configured with computer readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory for: estimating actual and predicted engine operating conditions for an upcoming segment of vehicle travel based on the one or more inputs retrieved at the navigation system; calculating a compressor outlet temperature profile for the upcoming segment of vehicle travel based on the estimated actual and predicted engine operating conditions”), the vehicle system including a fuel system and an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system, the observed state relating to operation of the EGR system (Col 12, Lines 54-64 recites “At 302, the method 300 comprises estimating and/or measuring vehicle operating conditions, including current engine operating conditions. The estimated conditions may include, for example, engine speed, driver demanded torque, which may be estimated based on the position of an accelerator pedal as explained above with reference to FIG. 2, ambient conditions (ambient temperature, barometric pressure, ambient humidity, etc.), EGR level, engine temperature, exhaust catalyst conditions (such as catalyst temperature and oxygen loading), fuel level, fuel octane of available fuel(s), etc.”); determine a predictive state of the vehicle system over a prediction horizon based on the observed state of the vehicle system, (Col 11, Lines 35-60 recites “calculating a compressor outlet temperature profile for the upcoming segment of vehicle travel based on the estimated actual and predicted engine operating conditions”); determine one or more constraints for the vehicle system; execute a control problem based on the predictive state of the vehicle system and the one or more constraints for the vehicle system over the prediction horizon; determine a control input for the vehicle system based on the executed control problem; and command the vehicle system based on the determined control input (Figure 3 shows a logic sequence wherein a constraint such as future drive demanded torque is determined (302 and 304), the controller executes a control problem to determine a predictive state of the vehicle over the prediction horizon (306), determine a plurality of inputs for the vehicle based on the control problem).
Santillo does teach the plurality of control inputs including the opening degree of an EGR valve (Col 27, Lines 50-56) but does not teach the plurality of control inputs including at least a target EGR flow rate value.
Matsumoto teaches a target EGR flow rate value (Paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to add to the plurality of control inputs of Santillo to include the control of the EGR valve based on a target EGR flow rate value as taught by Matsumoto in order to achieve a target EGR amount, wherein having the desired EGR amount based on vehicle operating conditions can produce desired outcomes such as but not limited to appropriate suppression of decrease in engine output and deterioration of combustion stability, suppressing heat damage, reduction of pumping loss, improvement of fuel efficiency, and suppressing knocking (Paragraph [0085] of Matsumoto).
In regards to claim 10:
Santillo teaches the command to the vehicle system further includes at least one of diverting energy to a battery of the vehicle or diverting energy to an electrically powered vehicle accessory (Col 7, Lines 45-54 recites “if it is determined that a vehicle battery will decrease below a threshold state of charge, and thus an increase in alternator torque is predicted, then the predicted engine load torque may increase for the duration during which the alternator torque is increased to charge the battery.”).
In regards to claim 11:
Santillo teaches the vehicle system comprises a turbocharger (222), wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the processing circuit to control operation of the turbocharger based on the determined control input (Col 22, Lines 21-55).
In regards to claim 12:
Santillo teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the processing circuit to: compare sensor information received after controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the determined control input relative to a desired set point; update a control-oriented model in response to the comparison; and control the vehicle system using the updated control-oriented model (Figure 3 shows the determining current engine operating conditions (302), generate a set desired set point (306), and update a control-oriented model in response to the comparison (310)).
In regards to claim 15:
Santillo teaches a method, comprising: receiving information by one or more processors, information indicative of an observed state of a vehicle system of a vehicle from a sensor of the vehicle (Col 11, Lines 35-60 recites “The controller may be configured with computer readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory for: estimating actual and predicted engine operating conditions for an upcoming segment of vehicle travel based on the one or more inputs retrieved at the navigation system; calculating a compressor outlet temperature profile for the upcoming segment of vehicle travel based on the estimated actual and predicted engine operating conditions”), the vehicle system including a fuel system and an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system, the observed state relating to operation of the EGR system (Col 12, Lines 54-64 recites “At 302, the method 300 comprises estimating and/or measuring vehicle operating conditions, including current engine operating conditions. The estimated conditions may include, for example, engine speed, driver demanded torque, which may be estimated based on the position of an accelerator pedal as explained above with reference to FIG. 2, ambient conditions (ambient temperature, barometric pressure, ambient humidity, etc.), EGR level, engine temperature, exhaust catalyst conditions (such as catalyst temperature and oxygen loading), fuel level, fuel octane of available fuel(s), etc.”); determine by the one or more processors, a predictive state of the vehicle system over a prediction horizon based on the observed state of the vehicle system (Col 11, Lines 35-60 recites “calculating a compressor outlet temperature profile for the upcoming segment of vehicle travel based on the estimated actual and predicted engine operating conditions”); determine by the one or more processors, one or more constraints for the vehicle system; executing, by the one or more processors, a control problem based on the predictive state of the vehicle system and the one or more constraints for the vehicle system over the prediction horizon; determining, by the one or more processors, a plurality of control inputs for the vehicle system based on the executed control problem; and commanding, by the one or more processors, the fuel system of the vehicle based on at least one of the determined plurality of control inputs (Figure 3 shows a logic sequence wherein a constraint such as future drive demanded torque is determined (302 and 304), the controller executes a control problem to determine a predictive state of the vehicle over the prediction horizon (306), determine a plurality of inputs for the vehicle based on the control problem (310)), the command structured to control at least one of a start of injection with at least one cylinder of an engine, a fuel flow rate, or a rail pressure for a common rail coupled to at least one fuel injector of the vehicle (Col 5, Lines 41-67 recites “Specifically, the controller 114 may estimate a future fuel injection profile for the future horizon. In this way, the controller 114 may estimate one or more future fuel injection profiles for one or more upcoming potential vehicle routes, where the estimated future fuel injection profiles may consider system constraints such as an outlet temperature of a turbocharger compressor. In this way, a more accurate estimate of fuel economy along two or more future routes may be obtained, and the controller 114 may select a more fuel efficient route to a desired location.”, and “The future engine operating conditions may include…fuel injection amount”, wherein the fuel injection amount is based on a fuel flow rate, a fuel timing, and rail pressure, wherein one or both must be controlled to adjust a fuel injection amount, for example such as increasing fuel injected can be done by maintaining a fuel flow rate for a longer duration or increasing the flow rate for the same duration).
Santillo does teach the plurality of control inputs including the opening degree of an EGR valve (Col 27, Lines 50-56) but does not teach the plurality of control inputs including at least a target EGR flow rate value.
Matsumoto teaches a target EGR flow rate value (Paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to add to the plurality of control inputs of Santillo to include the control of the EGR valve based on a target EGR flow rate value as taught by Matsumoto in order to achieve a target EGR amount, wherein having the desired EGR amount based on vehicle operating conditions can produce desired outcomes such as but not limited to appropriate suppression of decrease in engine output and deterioration of combustion stability, suppressing heat damage, reduction of pumping loss, improvement of fuel efficiency, and suppressing knocking (Paragraph [0085] of Matsumoto).
In regards to claim 16:
Santillo teaches receiving, by the one or more processors, sensor information after controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the at least one of the determined plurality of control inputs; updating, by the one or more processors, a control-oriented model based on the received sensor information after controlling operation of the vehicle system according to the at least one of the determined plurality of control inputs; and controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle system using the updated control-oriented model (Figure 3 shows the flow chart of operating the vehicle after receiving sensor information and then operating the vehicle accordingly based on the received information).
In regards to claim 18:
Santillo teaches the one or more constraints includes at least one of a maximum allowed engine torque (Col 22, Lines 21-26).
In regards to claim 19:
Santillo teaches the vehicle system comprises a turbocharger (222), wherein the instructions, and controlling by the one or more processors, operation of the turbocharger based on the determined plurality of control inputs (Col 22, Lines 21-55).
In regards to claim 20:
Santillo teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the processing circuit to: receive fleet information from other vehicles; and utilize the fleet information to update a control-oriented model (Col 4, Lines 24-49).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillo and Matsumoto and further in view of Garimella et al (US 11,053,881 hereinafter “Garimella”).
In regards to claim 3:
Santillo teaches executing the control problem includes minimizing a cost function that includes a fuel consumption variable (Step 326 in Figure 3) but does not teach one or more emission variables included.
Garimella teaches a minimizing cost function that includes an emission variable (Col 12, Lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the control problem of Santillo to include an emission variable as taught by Garimella in order to improve system performance (Col 12, Lines 5-29).
In regards to claim 17:
Santillo teaches executing the control problem includes minimizing a cost function that includes a fuel consumption variable (Step 326 in Figure 3) but does not teach one or more emission variables included.
Garimella teaches a minimizing cost function that includes an emission variable (Col 12, Lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the control problem of Santillo to include an emission variable as taught by Garimella in order to improve system performance (Col 12, Lines 5-29).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillo and Matsumoto and further in view of Fulton et al (US 10,982,614 hereinafter “Fulton”).
In regards to claim 8:
Santillo does not teach the vehicle is a hybrid vehicle, and wherein the vehicle system includes an electric motor and an internal combustion engine, and wherein the control input includes a control input that defines a power split between the electric motor and the internal combustion engine.
Fulton teaches a hybrid vehicle that includes an electric motor (120) and an internal combustion engine (110) and a control input that defines a power split between the electric motor and the internal combustion engine (Col 3, Line 49 – Col 4, Line 44 recites based on operating conditions dictating the split between the engine and the motor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the vehicle of Santillo to be a hybrid vehicle as taught by Fulton in order to provide electrical motor propulsion (Col 3, Line 49 – Col 4, Line 44 recites multiple instances of how power is split between the electric motor and engine, with the engine on and the motor off, the motor on and the engine off, and the engine on and the motor on).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillo and Matsumoto and further in view of Meyer et al (US 2019/0143961 hereinafter “Meyer”).
In regards to claim 9:
Santillo does not teach the vehicle system comprises a natural gas engine.
Meyer teaches an engine that is a natural gas engine (Paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the engine be a natural gas engine in order to provide a known fuel alternative engine (Paragraph [0012]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santillo and Matsumoto and further in view of Kumar et al (US 2015/0005994 hereinafter “Kumar”).
In regards to claim 13:
Santillo does not teach the vehicle is an at least partially autonomous vehicle.
Kumar teaches a vehicle that is at least partially an autonomous vehicle (Paragraph [0227]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the vehicle of Santillo to be at least partially autonomous as taught by Kumar in order to operate the vehicle unmanned.
In regards to claim 14:
Kumar teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the processing circuit to: receive look ahead information and store the look ahead information in the one or more memory devices; receive vehicle information regarding operation of the at least partially autonomous vehicle; determine a speed target for the at least partially autonomous vehicle; determine a fuel consumption target for the at least partially autonomous vehicle; and command a fuel system and a powertrain of the at least partially autonomous vehicle to implement the speed target and the fuel consumption target (Paragraphs [0222] – [0241]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3 of Remarks, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references wherein Matsumoto has been applied to teach an EGR valve and the control of said EGR valve to arrive at a target EGR flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747