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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/23/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by D’Amato et al. (US 2015/0094939 A1).
For claims 1 and 11, D’Amato discloses a vehicle control system, comprising:
at least one electronic processor and memory accessible by the at least one electronic processor, wherein the memory stores computer instructions; wherein the vehicle control system is configured so that, when the at least one electronic processor executes the computer instructions, the vehicle control system carries out a target value determination process of operating a vehicle based on a target value for a vehicle parameter (Fig. 1, abstract, where the system operate the vehicle at target value adaptively),
wherein the target value is determined based on a closed loop feedback process that uses a predicted primary mover performance measure to determine a target value indication (Fig. 4, para. 0044, 0063, where a closed loop feedback process determine the target operating values), and wherein the target value determination process includes: obtaining a current vehicle parameter value for the vehicle parameter; determining a current primary mover performance measure for the PMOP (Para. 0032, 0033, where actual current vehicle parameter values are determined); determining the predicted primary mover performance measure for the PMOP (Para. 0068, where the engine load performance are predicted); determining the target value indication for the vehicle parameter based on the current primary mover performance measure, the predicted primary mover performance measure, and the current vehicle parameter value for the vehicle parameter (Para. 0005, 0043, where the target values are determined based on actual and real time parameters, and predicted engine operations); and
operating the vehicle according to the target value for the vehicle parameter, wherein the target value for the vehicle parameter is obtained based on the target value indication (Para. 0059, 0062, 0070, 0074, where the target operating parameters of the vehicle is based on the targeted value, operating the vehicle).
For claims 2 and 12, D’Amato discloses the vehicle control system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the determining a current primary mover performance measure for the PMOP step includes determining a current brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and wherein the determining a predicted primary mover performance measure for the PMOP step includes determining a predicted BSFC (Para. 0068, 0070, where the performance measure related to the BSFC are determined and predicted).
For claims 3 and 13, D’Amato discloses the vehicle control system of claims 2 and 12, wherein the current BSFC is based on a current engine operating point (EOP), which is characterized at least in part by an instantaneous fuel consumption rate (IFCR), an instantaneous engine torque (IET), and/or an instantaneous engine speed (IES) (Para. 0017, 0029, 0031, 0074, 0075, where the BSFC is based on engine operating points, torque, relate to fuel use).
For claims 4 and 14, D’Amato discloses the vehicle control system of claim 12, wherein the determining a predicted primary mover performance measure for the PMOP step includes determining a plurality of predicted BSFCs, wherein each predicted BSFC of the plurality of predicted BSFCs corresponds to a candidate target value, and wherein the target value indication is determined based on at least two of the plurality of predicted BSFCs (Fig. 9, para. 0068, where plurality of predicted BSFCs corresponds to target values).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Amato et al. (US 2015/0094939 A1) and further in view of Seay et al. (US 2015/0233470 A1).
For claims 9 and 19, D’Amato discloses the vehicle control system of claims 1 and 11, but does not specifically disclose the vehicle parameter is vehicle speed and wherein the target value indication is or indicates a target vehicle speed. Seay in the same field of the art discloses the vehicle parameter is vehicle speed and wherein the target value indication is or indicates a target vehicle speed (Para. 0032, 0038, 0039). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of D’Amato to control the vehicle parameter as vehicle speed and wherein the target value indication is or indicates a target vehicle speed, as taught by Seay to adapt the speed of the vehicle to meet the BSFC requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10, 15-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For claim(s) 5 and 15, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the current primary mover performance measure is based on an electric motor operating point (EMOP).
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 depend(s) on claims 5 and 15 respectively, requiring all the depended limitations/features would also be allowable.
For claims 8 and 18, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the vehicle parameter is cabin air temperature and wherein the target value is or indicates a target cabin air temperature.
For claims 10 and 20, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the target value indication is determined based on a gradient of the primary mover performance measure with respect to the vehicle parameter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657