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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 1 & 17 have been amended. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1- 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1- 20 have been considered but 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.
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.
Claims 1-17 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scotland et al. (US2021/0375076 A1) further in view of Fox et al. (US2019/0048809A1).
As per claim 1, Scotland discloses: a method comprising:
receiving, by a remote computing system, a first emissions data packet from a vehicle controller, the first emissions data packet comprising a plurality of emissions values regarding operation of a vehicle associated with the vehicle controller (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7 & 16-22; analytics cloud platform [106]—comprising servers [110]--for remote OBD [100] and UM in vehicle [104], data logger/recorder [102], and emissions compliance module [112], and real-time monitoring of the vehicle health);
determining, by the remote computing system, that a first cumulative emissions value is greater than a threshold value, the first cumulative emissions value based on the plurality of emissions values (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 27, & 39; MIL, emissions compliance module [112] transmitting alert messages when exceeding predefined thresholds to owner and/or technician); and
responsive to determining that the first cumulative emissions value is greater than the threshold value, performing, by the remote computing system, corrective operations comprising (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 27, & 39; MIL, corrective actions starting, emissions compliance module [112] transmitting alert messages when exceeding predefined thresholds to owner and/or technician):
transmitting an indication that the first cumulative emissions value is greater than the threshold value to a third-party computing system, the indication including a request to perform a service operation on the vehicle (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-27, & 39; analytics cloud platform [106] configured to send alert messages [115] to users [116] and technicians when OBD [100] and I/M indicates noncompliance and/or potential failure);
receiving a second emissions data packet from the vehicle (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39 & 44; servers [110] receiving vehicle metrics from remote data logger device [102] and compliance module [300]); and
responsive to determining that a second cumulative emissions value is less than the threshold value, transmitting, by the remote computing system, a compliance data packet to the third-party computing system, the compliance data packet comprising the second emissions data packet (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55; compliance module [300] of vehicle [104] compared to vehicle metrics in database [306] and emission standards database [312], history of vehicle compliance test results [408]).
Scotland discloses the invention as detailed above.
However, Scotland does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the vehicle to change an operational parameter or that the data packet comprises the change operational parameter.
Nevertheless, Fox—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses causing the vehicle to change an operational parameter or that the data packet comprises the change operational parameter (see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52; selection/switching of engine emissions profiles).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention would have been motivated to combine Fox’s engine profile management with those of Scotland’s analytics platform in order to form a safer and more efficient system (I.e., by allowing for the ability to operate the vehicle utilizing a variety of profiles based on emissions results).
Motivation to combine Fox and Scotland not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from Fox (see at least Abstract and Background and Summary).
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 2: further comprising: receiving, by the remote computing system, a plurality of emissions data packets, each of the plurality of emissions data packets associated with a respective vehicle of a plurality of vehicles; and transmitting, by the remote computing system, the plurality of emissions data packets to the third-party computing system (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 3: wherein each of the plurality of vehicles is grouped by at least one of a fleet, a territory, or a vehicle type (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 4: wherein the first emissions data packet further comprises a fuel type and a fuel source (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 5: wherein the third-party computing system includes at least one of a fleet computing system, an operator computing system, an original equipment manufacturer computing system, a distributor computing system, or a repair facility computing system (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 6: wherein causing the vehicle to change the operational parameter comprises causing the vehicle to change at least one of: a fuel-to-air mixture, a fluid flow rate through a filter, a cruise control droop amount, a transmission shift schedule, a maximum engine speed, a maximum engine torque, a maximum engine power, or a derate trigger condition (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 7: wherein the compliance data packet further comprises the first emissions data packet and a change in the plurality of emissions values between the first emissions data packet and the second emissions data packet (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 8: a method comprising:
receiving, by the remote computing system, a first actual set of emissions values regarding operation of the vehicle from a vehicle computing system (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; predefined vehicle metrics, emissions compliance, compliance thresholds—standards set by specific States—with emissions standards database); and
responsive to determining that at least one of the first predicted set of emissions values or the first actual set of emissions values is above a predetermined threshold, transmitting, by the remote computing system (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; compliance module [300] with compliance thresholds and emission compliance report), an instruction to change an operational parameter to the vehicle computing system, wherein changing the operational parameter includes at least one of:
adjusting a fuel injection quantity, a fuel injection timing, or a fuel injection event; adjusting an air handling system; adjusting a fuel-to-air ratio; implementing a cylinder deactivation mode; or activating a heater disposed in an exhaust aftertreatment system (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 9: wherein the vehicle is a hybrid vehicle; and wherein changing the operational parameter further includes adjusting an engine to electric battery load based on at least one of an engine status, an engine health, the first predicted set of emissions values, or the first actual set of emissions values (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 10: the method further comprising responsive to adjusting the engine to electric battery load: generating, by the remote computing system, a second predicted set of emissions values regarding operation of the vehicle; receiving, by the remote computing system, a second actual set of emissions values regarding operation of the vehicle; and causing the hybrid vehicle to change from a first operating mode to a second operating mode responsive to determining that at least one of the second predicted set of emissions values or the second actual set of emissions values is above the predetermined threshold (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 11: wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the remote computing system, at least one well-to-tank emissions value of a fuel input, the at least one well-to-tank emissions value of the fuel input comprising at least one of an engine generated electricity emissions value, a renewable generated grid electricity emissions value, or a non-renewable grid generated electricity emissions value; and modifying at least one emissions value of the second predicted set of emissions values regarding operation of the vehicle with the at least one well-to-tank emissions value to determine a well-to-wheel value; wherein determining that at least one of the second predicted set of emissions values or the second actual set of emissions values is above the predetermined threshold comprises determining the well-to-wheel value is above the predetermined threshold (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 12: wherein during implementation of the cylinder deactivation mode, the method further comprises: identifying, by the remote computing system, a non-compliant cylinder of a plurality of engine cylinders; and disabling, by the remote computing system, the non-compliant cylinder (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 13: wherein identifying, by the remote computing system, the non-compliant cylinder includes: temporarily disabling each cylinder of a plurality of cylinders in a predetermined pattern; receiving, by the remote computing system, a disabled-cylinder emissions output for each cylinder of the plurality of cylinders in the predetermined pattern; and identifying, by the remote computing system and based on the disabled-cylinder emissions output, at least one non-compliant cylinder (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 14: wherein identifying the at least one non-compliant cylinder comprises determining that a value of the disabled-cylinder emissions output for the at least one non-compliant cylinder does not satisfy a corresponding threshold, wherein the value comprises at least one of: a combustion temperature that is below a temperature threshold, a pressure value that is below a pressure threshold, a power output that is below a power threshold, or an emissions value that is above an emissions threshold (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 15: wherein the method further comprises: generating, by the remote computing system, a reporting data packet, the reporting data packet comprising at least one of the first actual set of emissions values or the first predicted set of emissions values; receiving, by the remote computing system, a first request for a data subscription service; transmitting, by the remote computing system, the reporting data packet responsive to receiving the first request; and automatically transmitting, by the remote computing system, the reporting data packet to a third-party computing system (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 16: wherein the first request for the data subscription service is approved by the third-party computing system (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 17: a method of controlling a mild-hybrid powertrain, the method comprising: receiving, from a first sensor of the mild-hybrid powertrain, a first emissions value (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52; engine profiles for operation of hybrid vehicle, including sensors [802], processors [804] to select engine operation profile based on sensor data);
determining that the first emissions value exceeds a predefined threshold value; causing the mild-hybrid powertrain to change a first operational parameter responsive to determining that the first emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52; predetermined thresholds);
receiving, from the first sensor, a second emissions value; determining that the second emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52; engine profiles for operation of hybrid vehicle, including sensors [802], processors [804] to select engine operation profile based on sensor data);
causing the mild-hybrid powertrain to switch from a first mode of operation to a second mode of operation responsive to determining that the second emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52; engine profiles for operation of hybrid vehicle, including sensors [802], processors [804] to select engine operation profile based on sensor data); and
causing the mild-hybrid powertrain to switch to from the second mode of operation to the first mode of operation responsive to identifying an emergency scenario (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52; engine profiles for operation of hybrid vehicle, including sensors [802], processors [804] to select engine operation profile based on sensor data).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 19: wherein the second mode of operation is an electric motor only mode of operation, and wherein the first mode of operation is an internal combustion engine only mode of operation (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Scotland and Fox disclose claim 20: wherein the first mode of operation is an internal combustion engine only mode of operation, and wherein the emergency scenario includes a battery state of charge being below a predefined battery threshold value (see Scotland at least fig. 1- 8C and in particular fig. 1- 4 and Abstract ¶ 2-7, 16-22, 26-29, 39, 44, 53-55 & 83; and see Fox at least Fig. 1-9 and in particular Fig. 5-9 & Abstract & ¶3, 40-52).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scotland and Fox and further in view of LCB (WO2021/143594 A1).
Both Scotland and Fox disclose the invention as detailed above.
However, Scotland and Fox do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein causing the mild-hybrid powertrain to change the first operational parameter comprises activation of an electric heater within an aftertreatment system of the mild-hybrid powertrain, the electric heater configured to heat exhaust gas output by the mild-hybrid powertrain.
Nevertheless, LCB—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses wherein causing the mild-hybrid powertrain to change the first operational parameter comprises activation of an electric heater within an aftertreatment system of the mild-hybrid powertrain, the electric heater configured to heat exhaust gas output by the mild-hybrid powertrain (see LCB at least fig. 1-3 and Detailed ways: on-board electric heater (EHC) quickly heats exhaust gas).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine LCB’s method for optimizing emissions and overall vehicle efficiency with those of Scotland and Fox in order to provide for a more manageable and overall more reliable system (i.e., by ensuring that various vehicle parameters—emissions—are performing up to preset standards).
Motivation to combine Scotland and Fox with LCB, not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from LCB (see Summary of Invention).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights