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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in Figs. 3, 4 & 8 of the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels [e.g., see: MPEP 608.02(b)].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended to recite --and-- immediately following the comma at the end of line 22.
Claim 4 recites “a plurality of Actuator System Responses (ASR)” in line 2, which should be amended to instead recite --a plurality of Actuator System Responses (ASR) of the plurality of actuators-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “the plurality of ASR of the plurality of actuators” in line 2 of claim 5 (and lines 2-3 of claim 8).
Claim 11 recites “the plurality of actuators comprise” in line 1, which appears to be a misstating of --the plurality of actuators comprises--.
Claim 14 recites “a plurality of Actuator System Responses (ASR)” in line 2, which should be amended to instead recite --a plurality of Actuator System Responses (ASR) of the plurality of actuators-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “the plurality of ASR of the plurality of actuators” in line 2 of claim 15 (and line 2 of claim 18, and lines 2-3 of claim 19).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “constraint modules” in claims 1-20, “engine torque control module” in claims 1-20, “engine setpoint optimizer module” in claims 1-20, “engine setpoint control module” in claims 1-20, and “actuation blocks” in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “an engine setpoint control module configured to determine a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively” in lines 12-13; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “respectively” in line 13 in the context of “an engine setpoint control module configured to determine a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES,” especially in view of “a plurality of actuator setpoints” being plural while “the array of IES” is singular—“respectively,” by definition, means “separately or individually and in the order already mentioned (used when enumerating two or more items or facts that refer back to a previous statement)” which appears to be inapplicable to “an engine setpoint control module configured to determine a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively” in lines 12-13 of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each IES is expressed in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass” in lines 16-17, and claim 1 previously abbreviates “Individual Engine Setpoints” as “IES” via “an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES)” in line 10. However, given that “IES” is an abbreviation of “Individual Engine Setpoints,” it is unclear what exactly is meant by “each [Individual Engine Setpoints] is expressed…,” given that the term “each,” by definition, must refer to a singular thing, whereas “IES” is plural.”
Claim 1 recites “wherein the horizon request comprises an array of anticipated future values derived from a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment” in lines 17-19; however, claim 1 previously recites “an engine setpoint optimizer module configured to receive the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ)” in lines 8-9, and it is unclear whether the “array of anticipated future values” introduced in lines 17-18 as the “horizon request” is intended to be the same as or different from the “array of engine setpoint quantities” previously introduced in line 9 as the “horizon request.”
Claim 1 recites “wherein the horizon request is shaped such that the user experiences a smooth transition from a current velocity to a future velocity” in lines 20-21; however, because claim 1 is directed to “[an] engine” in line 1, it is unclear what exactly is meant by each of “a current velocity,” “a future velocity,” and “a smooth transition from a current velocity to a future velocity” with respect to the “user.” Put differently, it is unclear how the “engine” of claim 1 would cause any of “a current velocity,” “a future velocity,” and “a smooth transition from a current velocity to a future velocity” with respect to the “user,” especially since no context is defined by the claim for each of the “engine” and the “user” in the claim. Furthermore, given that the “horizon request” is previously defined by claim 1 as being “an array of ESQ,” it is unclear what exactly is meant by “shaped,” given that an array is, by definition, an ordered set of information which necessarily lacks a physical or geometric form (and therefore cannot be “shaped”).
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2-11 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the ECU determines, based on load conditions, a mode the engine is operated in; wherein the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode, and wherein each mode is associated with a different array of ESQ” in lines 2-4. First, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode” in view of “a mode” being singular, whereas “a rebreathe mode and a normal mode” refer to a pair of distinct modes, especially since it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the ECU determines, based on load conditions, a mode the engine is operated in” together with “the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode” in view of the “rebreathe mode” and the “normal mode” being distinct modes. Put differently, in view of the “rebreathe mode” and the “normal mode” being distinct modes, how would the “ECU” determine, based on the “load conditions,” that the engine is operated in the “rebreathe mode” AND the “normal mode” as the “mode?” Also, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “each mode,” in view of “a mode” being singular, whereas “a rebreathe mode and a normal mode” refer to a pair of distinct modes, and in view of “each mode” being nonspecific. Furthermore, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “each mode is associated with a different array of ESQ,” as it is unclear whether any of the singular “mode” in line 2 and/or the “rebreathe mode” and/or the “normal mode” is/are intended to be associated with the “array of ESQ” introduced in line 9 of claim 1 and/or whether any of the singular “mode” in line 2 and/or the “rebreathe mode” and/or the “normal mode” is/are intended to be associated with a common “array of ESQ” that differs from the “array of ESQ” introduced in line 9 of claim 1.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6, such that claim 7 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 6 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 6 is rejected.
Claim 7 refers to “the mode” in line 1; however, claim 7 is dependent from claim 6, and claim 6 recites “wherein the ECU determines, based on load conditions, a mode the engine is operated in; wherein the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode, and wherein each mode is associated with a different array of ESQ” in lines 2-4. Specifically, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the mode” in line 1 of claim 7 in view of claim 6 previously introducing each of “a mode” in line 2, “a rebreathe mode” in line 3, and “a normal mode” in line 3, and in view of claim 6 then referring to “each mode” in line 4. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the plurality of actuator setpoints may be determined using an engine map, an artificial neural network, a feedback model, or a feedforward model” in lines 1-2; however, the phrase “may be” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention [e.g., see: MPEP 2173.05(d)].
Claim 12 recites “receiving, via an engine torque control module, the horizon request from the plurality of constraint modules, the engine torque control module comprising: receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” in lines 4-14, of which “receiving, via an engine torque control module, the horizon request from the plurality of constraint modules” is a process step to be performed as part of the claimed method; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by inclusion of “the engine torque control module comprising: receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” in the claim because, while “receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” clearly further defines the “engine torque control module” introduced in line 4 of the claim, “receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” is entirely composed of process steps, and claim 12 fails to clearly set forth whether the process steps of “receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” are intended to be performed as part of the method of claim 12. Additionally, because “receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” is entirely composed of process steps, it is unclear what exactly is meant by preceding said process steps by the recitation “the engine torque control module comprising” in view of the recited “engine torque control module” being something other than a method (or process). Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional, but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and it is unclear whether (and, if so, how) any part(s) of “the engine torque control module comprising: receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” actually further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Additionally, it is entirely unclear what exactly is meant by each of “via an engine setpoint optimizer module,” “via an engine setpoint control module,” and “via a plurality of actuation blocks” in “the engine torque control module comprising: receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” given that “the engine torque control module comprising: receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” differently refers to “the engine torque control module.”
Claim 12 also recites “determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively” in lines 11-12; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “respectively” in line 12 in the context of “determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES,” especially in view of “a plurality of actuator setpoints” being plural while “the array of IES” is singular—“respectively,” by definition, means “separately or individually and in the order already mentioned (used when enumerating two or more items or facts that refer back to a previous statement)” which appears to be inapplicable to “determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively” in lines 11-12 of claim 12.
Claim 12 recites “expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass” in lines 9-10, and claim 12 previously abbreviates “Individual Engine Setpoints” as “IES” via “an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES)” in lines 7-8. However, given that “IES” is an abbreviation of “Individual Engine Setpoints,” it is unclear what exactly is meant by “expressing each [Individual Engine Setpoints]…,” given that the term “each,” by definition, must refer to a singular thing, whereas “IES” is plural.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the horizon request comprises an array of anticipated future values derived from a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment” in lines 18-20; however, claim 12 previously recites “receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ)” in lines 6-7, and it is unclear whether the “array of anticipated future values” introduced in line 18 as the “horizon request” is intended to be the same as or different from the “array of engine setpoint quantities” previously introduced in lines 6-7 as the “horizon request.”
Claim 12 introduces “a user’s current driving actions” in line 19; however, the claim previously introduces “input from a user” in line 3, and it is first unclear whether the “user” of line 19 is intended to be the same as or different from the “user” of line 3. It is also unclear whether the “user’s current driving actions” are intended to be the same as or different from the “input from a user,” especially since in view of lines 2-3 of claim 12 reciting “determining, via a plurality of constraint modules, a horizon request for an engine based on input from a user” (emphasis added) and in view of lines 18-20 of claim 12 recites “wherein the horizon request comprises an array of anticipated future values derived from a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment” (emphasis added).
Claim 12 recites “wherein the horizon request comprises deriving an array of anticipated future values based on a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment” in lines 18-20; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by this recitation in the claim. The recitation “deriving an array of anticipated future values based on a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment” appears to be recited in the form of a process step; however, the recitation “wherein the horizon request comprises deriving an array of anticipated future values based on a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment” fails to recite said process step as a process step to be included by the claimed method, and preceding said process step by the recitation “the horizon request comprises” appears to be nonsensical in view of the “horizon request” being something that is determined by the “determining…” step of lines 1-2 of the claimed method. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional, but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and it is unclear whether (and, if so, how) “wherein the horizon request comprises deriving an array of anticipated future values based on a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment” actually further limits the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the horizon request is shaped such that the user experiences a smooth transition from a current velocity to a future velocity” in lines 21-22; however, because claim 12 is directed to use of control modules for an engine (via lines 2-14 of the claimed method) and use of actuators (via lines 15-17 of the claimed method), it is unclear what exactly is meant by each of “a current velocity,” “a future velocity,” and “a smooth transition from a current velocity to a future velocity” with respect to the “user.” Put differently, it is unclear how the method of claim 12 would cause any of “a current velocity,” “a future velocity,” and “a smooth transition from a current velocity to a future velocity” with respect to the “user,” especially since no context is defined by the claim for the “user” in the claim—the “user” merely supplies “input” via lines 2-3 of claim 12. Furthermore, given that the “horizon request” is previously defined by claim 12 as being “an array of ESQ,” it is unclear what exactly is meant by “shaped,” given that an array is, by definition, an ordered set of information which necessarily lacks a physical or geometric form (and therefore cannot be “shaped”).
Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12, such that claims 13-20 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 12 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 12 is rejected.
Claim 16 recites “determining, via an electronic control unit (ECU), a mode the engine is operated in based on load conditions; wherein the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode, and wherein each mode is associated with a different array of ESQ” in lines 1-4. First, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode” in view of “a mode” being singular, whereas “a rebreathe mode and a normal mode” refer to a pair of distinct modes, especially since it is unclear what exactly is meant by “determining, via an electronic control unit (ECU), a mode the engine is operated in based on load conditions” together with “the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode” in view of the “rebreathe mode” and the “normal mode” being distinct modes. Put differently, in view of the “rebreathe mode” and the “normal mode” being distinct modes, how would the “ECU” determine, based on the “load conditions,” that the engine is operated in the “rebreathe mode” AND the “normal mode” as the “mode?” Also, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “each mode,” in view of “a mode” being singular, whereas “a rebreathe mode and a normal mode” refer to a pair of distinct modes, and in view of “each mode” being nonspecific. Furthermore, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “each mode is associated with a different array of ESQ,” as it is unclear whether any of the singular “mode” in line 2 and/or the “rebreathe mode” and/or the “normal mode” is/are intended to be associated with the “array of ESQ” introduced in line 7 of claim 12 and/or whether any of the singular “mode” in line 2 and/or the “rebreathe mode” and/or the “normal mode” is/are intended to be associated with a common “array of ESQ” that differs from the “array of ESQ” introduced in line 7 of claim 12.
Claim 17 depends from claim 16, such that claim 17 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 16 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 16 is rejected.
Claim 17 refers to “the mode” in line 1; however, claim 17 is dependent from claim 16, and claim 16 recites “determining, via an electronic control unit (ECU), a mode the engine is operated in based on load conditions; wherein the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode, and wherein each mode is associated with a different array of ESQ” in lines 1-4. Specifically, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the mode” in line 1 of claim 17 in view of claim 16 previously introducing each of “a mode” in line 2, “a rebreathe mode” in line 3, and “a normal mode” in line 3, and in view of claim 16 then referring to “each mode” in line 4. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “coordinating, via the engine setpoint control module, a timing of each IES based on the plurality of ASR of the plurality of actuators” in lines 1-2; however, claim 18 is dependent from claim 12, and claim 12 previously abbreviates “Individual Engine Setpoints” as “IES” via “an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES)” in lines 7-8. However, given that “IES” is an abbreviation of “Individual Engine Setpoints,” it is unclear what exactly is meant by “expressing each [Individual Engine Setpoints]…,” given that the term “each,” by definition, must refer to a singular thing, whereas “IES” is plural.
Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18, such that claims 19 and 20 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 18 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 18 is rejected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-6, 8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0107920 to Roth et al. (hereinafter: “Roth”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0131061 to Whitney et al. (hereinafter: “Whitney”).
With respect to claim 1, Roth teaches an engine (e.g., 10 & 100) (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5 & 7), comprising: an electronic control unit (ECU) (20) (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0019) comprising: a plurality of constraint modules configured to determine a horizon request for the engine based on input from a user, wherein the horizon request comprises anticipated future values derived from a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 7A & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0024, 0062, 0067-0068, 0074-0075, 0086, 0089-0100, 0110-0111 & 0114-0116, the controller 20 includes structure and function to determines, for each cylinder of the engine, a desired brake torque and a desired engine indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) (e.g., “horizon request”) (e.g., anticipated future values) (e.g., at 610) based, at least in part, on received driver inputs (e.g., “input from a user”; e.g., “user’s current driving actions”) (e.g., at 602) and ambient conditions (e.g., “information related to an external driving environment”) (e.g., at 604), such that the controller 20 includes structure and function definable as a “plurality of constraint modules”], wherein the horizon request is shaped such that the user experiences a smooth transition from a current velocity to a future velocity [it is apparent from at least ¶ 0019, 0045-0046, 0062, 0064 & 0114 that the driver, at least at times, experiences a definable “smooth transition” via the desired engine IMEP, such as when the desired engine IMEPs correspond to desired steady state and/or when the desired engine IMEPs correspond to a desired mild transient intended to have a smooth heat release process and intended to provide stable (or combustion knock-free) combustion in the engine, especially since the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “smooth transition” is broad in scope and is based on a matter of opinion by the driver, which may vary between different drivers]; and an engine torque control module configured to receive as input the horizon request from the plurality of constraint modules, the engine torque control module comprising: an engine setpoint optimizer module configured to receive the horizon request as engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determine Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the ESQ, wherein each IES is expressed in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-5, 7A-7C & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023-0024, 0027-0028, 0031-0033, 0037, 0042-0043, 0046-0062, 0090, 0093-0097 0099-0100, 0105, 0110, 0115-0120, the controller 20 includes structure and function to receive the desired engine IMEPs, with the desired engine IMEPs being definable as “engine setpoint quantities,” and determine target values (calibration targets) (e.g., IES) for each of a plurality of control parameters (e.g., at 614), based on the desired engine IMEP of each cylinder of the engine, for operating corresponding ones of at least two of a second charge air cooler bypass valve 144, a variable geometry turbocharger (VGT) 118, first and second thermostats 250 & 252, oil control valves 84a-84d, or intake air heaters 80a-80d, and corresponding to pressure, temperature, or flow, such that the controller 20 includes structure and function definable as an “engine setpoint optimizer module” of a definable “engine torque control module”; because timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives]; an engine setpoint control module configured to determine a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the IES, respectively [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023-0024, 0027-0028, 0031-0033, 0037, 0042-0043, 0046-0062, 0090, 0093-0097 0099-0100, 0105, 0110, 0115-0120, the controller 20 includes structure and function to determine modified target values (modified calibration targets) for each of the plurality of control parameters (e.g., “actuator setpoints”) (e.g., at 618 & 620), based on the target values (calibration targets) for each of a plurality of control parameters, for operating corresponding ones of at least two of a second charge air cooler bypass valve 144, a variable geometry turbocharger (VGT) 118, first and second thermostats 250 & 252, oil control valves 84a-84d, or intake air heaters 80a-80d, such that the controller 20 includes structure and function definable as the “engine setpoint control module” of the definable “engine torque control module”], and a plurality of actuation blocks configured to convert the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-5, 7A-7C & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023-0024, 0027-0028, 0031-0033, 0037, 0042-0043, 0046-0062, 0090, 0093-0097 0099-0100, 0105, 0110, 0115-0120, the controller 20 includes structure and function to convert the modified target values (modified calibration targets) into control signals (e.g., “voltage signals”) (e.g., at 622) to operate the corresponding ones of the at least two of the second charge air cooler bypass valve 144, the VGT 118, the first and second thermostats 250 & 252, the oil control valves 84a-84d, or the intake air heaters 80a-80d, such that the controller 20 includes structure and function definable as a “plurality of actuation blocks” of the definable “engine torque control module”]; a plurality of actuators, each actuator being configured to receive a corresponding voltage signal of the plurality of voltage signals and operate based upon the corresponding voltage signal to collectively facilitate a combustion reaction in the engine [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-5, 7A-7C & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019, 0023-0024, 0027-0028, 0031-0033, 0037, 0042-0043, 0046-0062, 0090, 0093-0097 0099-0100, 0105, 0110, 0115-0120, the “engine” includes the second charge air cooler bypass valve 144, the VGT 118, the first and second thermostats 250 & 252, the oil control valves 84a-84d, and the intake air heaters 80a-80d, where the at least two of the second charge air cooler bypass valve 144, the VGT 118, the first and second thermostats 250 & 252, the oil control valves 84a-84d, or the intake air heaters 80 are definable as a “plurality of actuators” and each of the definable “plurality of actuators” is structured so as to receive, and operate based on, the corresponding one of the control signals (e.g., at 622), such that, in combination, the definable “plurality of actuators” facilitate an engine combustion process in a combustion chamber 28].
Roth appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the horizon request comprises an array of anticipated future values derived from the user's current driving actions and the information related to the external driving environment or whether the engine setpoint optimizer module is configured to receive the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ). Roth also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the engine setpoint optimizer module is configured to determine an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on an array of ESQ or whether the engine setpoint control module is configured to determine the plurality of actuator setpoints based on an array of IES, respectively.
Whitney teaches an analogous engine including a controller which determines a horizon request for the engine as an array of anticipated future values (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0007, 0060, 0103, 0110 & 0116-0118).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the engine of Roth with the teachings of Whitney such that the plurality of constraint modules is further configured to determine the horizon request for the engine based on the input from the user as an array of anticipated future values, instead of as the anticipated future values, to beneficially arrange and sort the anticipated future values of the horizon request in a data structure in memory of controller structure of the engine, as compared to the generic inclusion of the anticipated future values of the horizon request in the memory of the controller structure of the engine of Roth. Therefore, in such a modification, the engine setpoint optimizer module would also be configured to receive the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), instead of as the engine setpoint quantities, by virtue of the horizon request comprising the array of anticipated future values, instead of the anticipated future values.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the engine of Roth with the teachings of Whitney such that the engine setpoint optimizer module is further configured to determine an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ, instead of to determine the IES based on the engine setpoint quantities, to beneficially arrange and sort the IES in a data structure in the memory of the controller structure of the engine, as compared to the generic inclusion of the IES in the memory of the controller structure of the engine of Roth. Therefore, in such a modification, the engine setpoint control module would also be configured to determine the plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, instead of based on the IES.
With respect to claim 2, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 1, wherein the ESQ comprises an Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP) or a Net Mean Effective Pressure (NMEP) or a Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1; because an IMEP, a NMEP, and a BMEP are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 3, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 1, wherein the engine setpoint optimizer module is further configured to calculate a plurality of time delays (as discussed by at least ¶ 0045, 0062, 0069, 0087 & 0110 of Roth), wherein each time delay corresponds to time elapsed between sending an individual actuator of the plurality of actuators a command and receiving a system response from the individual actuator of the plurality of actuators (as discussed by at least ¶ 0045, 0062, 0069, 0087, 0110 of Roth).
With respect to claim 4, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 3; however, Roth appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the engine setpoint optimizer module is further configured to store the plurality of time delays as a plurality of Actuator System Responses (ASR) (as discussed by at least ¶ 0045, 0062, 0069, 0087, 0110 of Roth).
With respect to claim 5, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 4, wherein the array of IES is determined based upon the array of ESQ and the plurality of ASR of the plurality of actuators (as discussed by at least ¶ 0045, 0062, 0069, 0087, 0110 of Roth, and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 6, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 1, wherein the ECU determines, based on load conditions, a mode the engine is operated in; wherein the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode (as discussed by at least ¶ 0070-0081, 0096, 0103 & 0107), and wherein each mode is associated with a different array of ESQ (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, the “array of ESQ,” like each mode, varies based on the input from the user, such that each mode is necessarily associated with a different “array of ESQ”).
With respect to claim 8, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 5, wherein the engine setpoint control module is further configured to coordinate a timing of the array of IES based on the plurality of ASR of the plurality of actuators (as discussed by at least ¶ 0045, 0062, 0069, 0087, 0110 of Roth, and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 10, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actuator setpoints may be determined using an engine map, an artificial neural network, a feedback model, or a feedforward model [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and “wherein the plurality of actuator setpoints may be determined using an engine map, an artificial neural network, a feedback model, or a feedforward model” (emphasis added) sets forth a preference, but not a requirement, for the manner in which the “plurality of actuator setpoints” is intended to be determined, such that “wherein the plurality of actuator setpoints may be determined using an engine map, an artificial neural network, a feedback model, or a feedforward model” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “engine” under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, as depicted by at least Figs. 7A & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0090-0091, 0096, 0110, 0113 & 0116, the modified target values (modified calibration targets) for each of the plurality of control parameters are determined using a definable feedback model; because an engine map, an artificial neural network, a feedback model, and a feedforward model are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 11, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actuators comprise an intake air temperature blend valve, a variable geometry turbo (VGT), a thermostat valve, an oil control valve (OCV), and an intake air heater (IAH) (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 12, Roth modified supra teaches the method comprising: determining, via a plurality of constraint modules, a horizon request for an engine based on input from a user (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); receiving, via an engine torque control module, the horizon request from the plurality of constraint modules (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1), the engine torque control module comprising: receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional, but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “the engine torque control module comprising: receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” necessarily recites process steps to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines previously introduced process step(s) of the claimed method, such that “the engine torque control module comprising: receiving, via an engine setpoint optimizer module, the horizon request as an array of engine setpoint quantities (ESQ), and determining an array of Individual Engine Setpoints (IES) based on the array of ESQ; expressing each IES in terms of timing, split percentage, pressure, flow, temperature, or mass; determining, via an engine setpoint control module, a plurality of actuator setpoints based on the array of IES, respectively, and converting, via a plurality of actuation blocks, the plurality of actuator setpoints into a plurality of voltage signals” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1], and facilitating, via a plurality of actuators, a combustion reaction in an engine, each actuator receiving a corresponding voltage signal of the plurality of voltage signals and operating based upon the corresponding voltage signal (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1), wherein the horizon request comprises deriving an array of anticipated future values based on a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment [no part of “wherein the horizon request comprises deriving an array of anticipated future values based on a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment” necessarily recites process steps to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines previously introduced process step(s) of the claimed method, such that “wherein the horizon request comprises deriving an array of anticipated future values based on a user's current driving actions and information related to an external driving environment” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I, as discussed in detail above); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1], and wherein the horizon request is shaped such that the user experiences a smooth transition from a current velocity to a future velocity (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 13, Roth modified supra teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: calculating, via the engine setpoint optimizer module, a plurality of time delays, wherein each time delay corresponds to time elapsed between sending an individual actuator of the plurality of actuators a command and receiving a system response from the individual actuator of the plurality of actuators (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 3).
With respect to claim 14, Roth modified supra teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: storing, via the engine setpoint optimizer module, the plurality of time delays as a plurality of Actuator System Responses (ASR) (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 4).
With respect to claim 15, Roth modified supra teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: determining the array of IES based upon the array of ESQ and the plurality of ASR of the plurality of actuators (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 5).
With respect to claim 16, Roth modified supra teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: determining, via an electronic control unit (ECU), a mode the engine is operated in based on load conditions, wherein the mode comprises a rebreathe mode and a normal mode, and wherein each mode is associated with a different array of ESQ (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 6).
With respect to claim 18, Roth modified supra teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: coordinating, via the engine setpoint control module, a timing of each IES based on the plurality of ASR of the plurality of actuators (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 8).
With respect to claim 19, Roth modified supra teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising: determining, via the engine setpoint control module, the plurality of actuator setpoints using the array of IES and the plurality of ASR of the plurality of actuators (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 5 and 12).
With respect to claim 20, Roth modified supra teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising: determining the plurality of actuator setpoints by way of an engine map, an artificial neural network, a feedback model, or a feedforward model (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 10).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Whitney, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0029058 to Duesmann et al. (hereinafter: “Duesmann”).
With respect to claim 7, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 6; however, Roth appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the ECU is configured to prevent toggling of the mode via hysteresis.
Duesmann teaches an analogous engine including an ECU (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2) configured to prevent toggling of modes via hysteresis (as discussed by at least ¶ 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the engine of Roth with the teachings of Duesmann, if even necessary, such that the ECU is further configured to prevent toggling of the mode via hysteresis because Duesmann further teaches that such functionality by the ECU of the engine beneficially avoids switching between two modes via establishing of the hysteresis at transitions between the two modes (as discussed by at least ¶ 0040 of Duesmann).
With respect to claim 17, Roth modified supra teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: performing hysteresis in order to prevent toggling of the mode via the ECU (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 7).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Whitney, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0243241 to Kuo et al. (hereinafter: “Kuo”).
With respect to claim 9, Roth modified supra teaches the engine of claim 1, wherein the engine setpoint control module comprises at least one feedback model (as depicted by at least Figs. 7A & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0090-0091, 0096, 0110, 0113 & 0116); however, Roth appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the engine setpoint control module comprises at least one feedforward model.
Kuo teaches an engine having an engine setpoint control module comprising a feedback model and a feedforward model (as discussed by at least ¶ 0014-0015 & 0037-0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the engine of Roth with the teachings of Kuo, if even necessary, such that the engine setpoint control module comprises at least one feedforward model because Kuo further teaches that such functionality by the engine setpoint control module of the engine beneficially achieves a fast system response in instances when applied (as discussed by at least ¶ 0037 of Kuo).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747