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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Preliminary Amendments
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 04/15/2024. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) no has/have been amended, claim(s) 1-20 has/have been cancelled, and new claim(s) 21-40 has/have been added. Thus, claims 21-40 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35, the term “one or more phases” in line 4 and “one or more phases” in line 5 should each be corrected to “the one or more phases”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claims 21 and 39, third to last line, the term “the amount of fuel flow evaporated from the engine oil” renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear as to which one of the two already-recited recitations “amount of fuel evaporated…with the engine on” or “amount of fuel evaporated…with the engine off” the limitation is referring back to. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be the total amount of fuel evaporated from the engine oil with the engine on and off. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the engine torque" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the ambient air pressure" and “the engine speed” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “a cold start phase” in line 2. However, it is unclear if this is the same as that of claim 21. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21, 30-33 & 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites a method of manage fuel in oil in an internal combustion engine of hybrid electric vehicle, the method comprising (judicial exceptions in bold and additional elements underlined):
determining an amount of fuel flow into the engine oil during one or more cold start phases of engine operation;
determining an amount of fuel evaporated from the engine oil during one or more phases of vehicle operation with the engine on;
determining an amount of fuel evaporated from the engine oil during one or more phases of vehicle operation with the engine off;
determining a percentage of fuel in the engine oil from the amount of fuel flow into the engine oil and the amount of fuel flow evaporated from the engine oil; and
modifying a service interval for the vehicle based on the percentage of fuel in the engine oil.
The analysis of claim 21 continues as:
Step 2A prong 1: The claim recites:
The mental processes of limitations a, b, c, e.
The mathematical concept of limitation d.
Step 2A prong 2: The claim recites:
The additional elements of limitations a, b, c.
The additional elements (a), (b), and (c) amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to 1) mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity, 2) mere instructions to implement the recited abstract ideas on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas, and/or 3) merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 31-33 & 37-38 are rejected for failing to recite any further additional elements capable of integrating the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application or providing an inventive concept.
Claim 39 recites an apparatus for managing fuel in oil in an internal combustion engine of hybrid electric vehicle, the apparatus comprising processing means configured to, (judicial exceptions in bold and additional elements underlined):
determining an amount of fuel flow into the engine oil during one or more cold start phases of engine operation;
determining an amount of fuel evaporated from the engine oil during one or more phases of vehicle operation with the engine on;
determining an amount of fuel evaporated from the engine oil during one or more phases of vehicle operation with the engine off;
determining a percentage of fuel in the engine oil from the amount of fuel flow into the engine oil and the amount of fuel flow evaporated from the engine oil; and
modifying a service interval for the vehicle based on the percentage of fuel in the engine oil.
The analysis of claim 39 continues as:
Step 2A prong 1: The claim recites:
The mental processes of limitations a, b, c, e.
The mathematical concept of limitation d.
Step 2A prong 2: The claim recites:
The additional elements of limitations a, b, c.
The additional element “processing means” is considered mere instructions to implement the recited abstract ideas on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas and cannot integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The additional elements a, b, and c amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to 1) mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity, 2) mere instructions to implement the recited abstract ideas on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas, and/or 3) merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The various cited prior arts all teach similar systems and methods for detecting oil dilution amount at least during cold-starts of the engine, as well as during normal engine operations, and notifying user/operator of vehicle to change the engine oil based on the result.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-pm (CT).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights