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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 of US Application No. 18/869,904, filed on 27 November 2024, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 27 November 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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: “current information acquisition unit that acquires”, “fuel injection information acquisition unit that acquires”, and “combustion abnormality detection unit that estimates” in claim 1; “torque component computation unit that calculates in claim 2; “fuel injection amount detection unit that uses the fuel injection pulse width and the fuel injection pressure to estimate” in claim 4; “combustion state learning unit that acquires” in claim 6; “combustion state learning unit that acquires” in claim 8; “notification unit that notifies” in claim 11.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-13 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a machine and independent claim 12 is directed toward a process, which fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “estimates a combustion state of the internal combustion engine based on the current information and the fuel injection information”. Independent claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. These limitations may be performed in the human mind. For example, a person having current information and the fuel injection information may mentally analyze the information to estimate the combustion state of the internal combustion engine. Using a computer, i.e., the claimed combustion abnormality detection unit, to perform this abstract idea does not take the limitation out of the mental process and/or mathematical groupings. Therefore, claims 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 1 and 12 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 1 and 12 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “a current information acquisition unit that acquires current information from the electric motor”, “a fuel injection information acquisition unit that acquires fuel injection information from a control unit that controls the internal combustion engine”, and “a combustion abnormality detection unit”. Claim 12 recites the additional elements “acquiring current information from the electric motor” and “acquiring fuel injection information from a control unit that controls the internal combustion engine”.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The combustion abnormality detection unit, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a computer. Using the combustion abnormality detection unit to estimate the combustion state of the engine is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Acquiring current information and fuel injection information, using the acquisition units (claim 1) or without using the acquisition units (claim 12), is data gathering. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1 and 12 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Do the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1 and 12 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1 and 12 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The current information acquisition unit and fuel injection information acquisition unit are recited at a high level of generality and, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a generic computer. Receiving current information and fuel injection information is receiving data using a computer. Therefore, these limitations represent a generic computer that performs generic computing functions. The additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 12 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2 recites “a torque component computation unit that calculates, based on the current information, a torque component that is indicated in the current information and varies according to torque received by the electric motor from the internal combustion engine”, which may be performed mentally and/or is a mathematical calculation. Claim 2 further recites “wherein the combustion abnormality detection unit estimates the combustion state of the internal combustion engine based on the torque component and the fuel injection information”, which further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., estimate a combustion state. Even as further defined, estimating the combustion state may still be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 3 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., acquire fuel injection information. Even as further defined, acquiring fuel injection information is still data gathering and is still using a generic computer to perform a generic computing function. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “a fuel injection amount detection unit that uses the fuel injection pulse width and the fuel injection pressure to estimate an amount of fuel injected to be introduced in the internal combustion engine”, which may be performed mentally and/or is a mathematical calculation. Claim 4 further recites “wherein the combustion abnormality detection unit estimates a combustion state of each of cylinders of the internal combustion engine based on the torque component and the amount of fuel injected”, which further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., estimate a combustion state. Even as further defined, estimating the combustion state may still be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the combustion abnormality detection unit calculates a combustion characteristic amount from the torque component” and “determines that the combustion state of the internal combustion engine is abnormal when the combustion characteristic amount exceeds an upper limit threshold for the combustion characteristic amount defined in advance for each of amounts of fuel injected or falls below a lower limit threshold for the combustion characteristic amount defined in advance for each of amounts of fuel injected”, which may be performed mentally and/or are mathematical calculations. Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 6 recites “a combustion state learning unit that . . . calculates a standard deviation of the combustion characteristic amounts from the data pieces, and determines, based on the calculated standard deviation, the upper limit thresholds and the lower limit thresholds for the combustion characteristic amounts for each of the amounts of fuel injected”, which may be performed mentally and/or is a mathematical calculation. Claim 6 recites the additional limitations “a combustion state learning unit that acquires a plurality of data pieces including pairs of the combustion characteristic amounts calculated by the combustion abnormality detection units and the amounts of fuel injected that have been estimated by the fuel injection amount detection unit” and “wherein the combustion abnormality detection unit acquires the upper limit thresholds and the lower limit thresholds determined by the combustion state learning unit”. Acquiring the plurality of data pieces and thresholds is data gathering using a generic computer to perform a generic computing function. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the combustion abnormality detection unit calculates a combustion characteristic amount from the torque component” and “determines that the combustion state of the internal combustion state is abnormal when the combustion characteristic amount exceeds an upper limit threshold for the combustion characteristic amount defined for each piece of the fuel injection information or falls below a lower limit threshold for the combustion characteristic amount defined for each piece of the fuel injection information”, which may be performed mentally and/or are mathematical calculations. Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 8 recites “a combustion state learning unit that . . . calculates a standard deviation of the combustion characteristic amounts from the data pieces, and determines, based on the calculated standard deviation, the upper limit thresholds and the lower limit thresholds for the combustion characteristic amounts for each of the fuel injection information”, which may be performed mentally and/or is a mathematical calculation. Claim 6 recites the additional limitations “a combustion state learning unit that acquires a plurality of data pieces including pairs of the combustion characteristic amounts calculated by the combustion abnormality detection unit and the fuel injection information acquired by the fuel injection information acquisition unit” and “wherein the combustion abnormality detection unit acquires the upper limit thresholds and the lower limit thresholds determined by the combustion state learning unit”. Acquiring the plurality of data pieces and thresholds is data gathering using a generic computer to perform a generic computing function. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., calculate a combustion characteristic amount. Even as further defined, calculating the combustion characteristic amount may still be performed mentally and/or is a mathematical calculation. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 10 further defines previously-identified abstract ideas. Even as further defined, the abstract ideas may still be performed mentally and/or are mathematical calculations. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements “at least one of a display unit that displays the combustion state of the internal combustion engine” and “a notification unit that notifies the combustion state of the internal combustion engine”. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Outputting on a display and notifying on a notification unit are outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, 2, 5, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (US 2022/0003182 A1, “Eom”) in view of Lucke et al. (US 2020/0132570 A1, “Lucke”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Eom discloses a method and system for diagnosing misfire of an engine and teaches:
[ ];
a fuel injection information acquisition unit that acquires fuel injection information from a control unit that controls the internal combustion engine (data from MAF sensor 120 and MAP sensor 130 provided to ECU 200 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0046], [0058]); and
a combustion abnormality detection unit that estimates a combustion state of the internal combustion engine (at S550, misfire due to valve leakage is determined – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0118]) based on [torque] information (misfire is determined at S520 based on occurrence of an output torque drop – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0106]) and the fuel injection information (misfire due to valve leakage may be determined by information from MAF sensor 120 and MAP sensor 130 – see at least ¶ [0128]-[0134]).
Eom fails to teach a current information acquisition unit that acquires current information from the electric motor; estimates a combustion state of the internal combustion engine based on the current information.
However, Lucke discloses an equipment control system and teaches:
a current information acquisition unit that acquires current information from the electric motor (generator sensor 174 measures current of the generator – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0035]; controller receives signals representing generator parameters from various generator sensors, such as output voltage and output current – see at least ¶ [0029]);
a combustion abnormality detection unit that estimates a combustion state of the internal combustion engine based on the current information (faulty fuel injector or degraded valves may be detected by lower combustion torque output generated by generator 120 coupled to engine 110 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0134]; frequency content used to diagnose condition of the engine based on a generator parameter, e.g., generator output voltage/current – see at least ¶ [0036]; NOTE: motor torque is a function of current, voltage, motor efficiency and motor RPM, or τ = (I * V * E *60) / (rpm * 2π)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for diagnosing misfire of an engine of Eom to provide a current information acquisition unit and determine combustion state based on the current information, as taught by Lucke, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for identifying engine faults without the use of additional sensors, e.g., torque sensors (Lucke at ¶ [0134]).
Regarding claim 2, Eom further teaches:
a torque component computation unit that calculates [ ] a torque component [ ] (ECU 200 receives detection values from torque sensor 101 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0058]), wherein the combustion abnormality detection unit estimates the combustion state of the internal combustion engine (at S550, misfire due to valve leakage is determined – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0118]) based on the torque component (misfire is determined at S520 based on occurrence of an output torque drop – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0106]) and the fuel injection information (misfire due to valve leakage may be determined by information from MAF sensor 120 and MAP sensor 130 – see at least ¶ [0128]-[0134]).
Eom fails to teach but Lucke further teaches:
a torque component computation unit that calculates, based on the current information, a torque component that is indicated in the current information and varies according to torque received by the electric motor from the internal combustion engine (faulty fuel injector or degraded valves may be detected by lower combustion torque output generated by generator 120 coupled to engine 110 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0134]; frequency content used to diagnose condition of the engine based on a generator parameter, e.g., generator output voltage/current – see at least ¶ [0036]; NOTE: motor torque is a function of current, voltage, motor efficiency and motor RPM, or τ = (I * V * E *60) / (rpm * 2π)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method and system for diagnosing misfire of an engine of Eom and Lucke to provide for calculating a torque component based on current information, as taught by Lucke, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for identifying engine faults without the use of additional sensors, e.g., torque sensors (Lucke at ¶ [0134]).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Eom fails to teach but Lucke further teaches:
wherein the combustion abnormality detection unit calculates a combustion characteristic amount from the torque component (peak magnitude of the frequency content – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0040]), and determines that the combustion state of the internal combustion engine is abnormal when the combustion characteristic amount exceeds an upper limit threshold for the combustion characteristic amount defined in advance for each of amounts of fuel injected (amplitude of frequency component 321 is distorted, e.g., increased in amplitude, as compared to a threshold value – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0040]) or falls below a lower limit threshold for the combustion characteristic amount defined in advance for each of amounts of fuel injected (amplitude of frequency component 323 is distorted, e.g., decreased in amplitude, as compared to a threshold value – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method and system for diagnosing misfire of an engine of Eom and Lucke to provide for calculating a combustion characteristic and determining the combustion state based on the combustion characteristic, as further taught by Lucke, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for identifying engine faults without the use of additional sensors, e.g., torque sensors (Lucke at ¶ [0134]).
Regarding claim 9, Eom fails to teach but Lucke further teaches:
wherein the combustion characteristic amount is a torque peak of the torque component (peak magnitude of the frequency content – see at least ¶ [0039], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method and system for diagnosing misfire of an engine of Eom and Lucke to provide the combustion characteristic as a torque peak, as further taught by Lucke, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for identifying engine faults without the use of additional sensors, e.g., torque sensors (Lucke at ¶ [0134]).
Regarding claim 10, Eom fails to teach but Lucke further teaches:
wherein the current information acquisition unit breaks down the [torque] information into combustion sections of cylinders of the internal combustion engine at least, the torque component computation unit calculates the torque component [ ] (see Fig. 4A and ¶ [0095]), and the combustion abnormality detection unit estimates a combustion state of each of the cylinders of the internal combustion engine based on the torque component and the fuel injection information (misfire is determined at S520 based on occurrence of an output torque drop – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0106]) and the fuel injection information (misfire due to valve leakage may be determined by information from MAF sensor 120 and MAP sensor 130 – see at least ¶ [0128]-[0134]).
Eom fails to teach but Lucke further teaches:
wherein the current information acquisition unit breaks down the current information into combustion sections of cylinders of the internal combustion engine, the torque component computation unit calculates the torque component based on the current information broken down into the combustion sections of the cylinders (faulty fuel injector or degraded valves may be detected by lower combustion torque output generated by generator 120 coupled to engine 110 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0134]; frequency content used to diagnose condition of the engine based on a generator parameter, e.g., generator output voltage/current – see at least ¶ [0036]; NOTE: motor torque is a function of current, voltage, motor efficiency and motor RPM, or τ = (I * V * E *60) / (rpm * 2π)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method and system for diagnosing misfire of an engine of Eom and Lucke to provide for calculating a torque component based on current information, as taught by Lucke, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for identifying engine faults without the use of additional sensors, e.g., torque sensors (Lucke at ¶ [0134]).
Regarding claim 11, Eom further teaches:
the diagnosis device further comprising: at least one of a display unit that displays the combustion state of the internal combustion engine, and a notification unit that notifies the combustion state of the internal combustion engine (at S560, ECU 200 may warn the driver to check the engine by lighting the engine warning lamp 290 – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0137]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights