DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU (US 20170167393 A1) in view of SATO (JP 2001355462 A).
Re claim 1, RYU ‘393 discloses control method for opening and closing an intake valve and an exhaust valve of an engine (par. 0011), the engine including an intake continuous variable valve duration (CVVD) apparatus 40 (fig. 1-2; par. 0048 & 0059) that is disposed at an intake side of the engine, an intake continuous variable valve timing (CVVT) apparatus 55 disposed at the intake side of the engine, an exhaust CVVD apparatus 50 that is disposed at an exhaust side of the engine, and an exhaust CVVT apparatus 55 disposed at the exhaust side of the engine, the control method comprising:
determining, by a controller 30, a driving condition region among a predetermined plurality of driving condition regions that are defined by a speed of the engine and a torque of the engine (par. 0062); and
controlling, by the controller 30, an opening timing and a closing timing of each of the intake valve and the exhaust valve based on the driving condition region (par. 0063-0064) of the engine by controlling of operations of the intake CVVD apparatus 40, the intake CVVT apparatus 45, the exhaust CVVD apparatus 50, and the exhaust CVVT apparatus 55,
wherein controlling the opening timing and the closing timing of each of the intake valve and the exhaust valve comprises:
based on the driving condition region corresponding to a predetermined low torque region (e.g., first control region; par. 0073, 0078-0081), outputting, by the controller 30, a control signal to provide (ii) an exhaust valve opening (EVO) timing to be before the BDC (e.g., see fig. 5B for EVO timing map).
RYU ‘393 fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller 30 outputs a control signal to provide (i) an intake valve closing (IVC) timing to be before a bottom dead center (BDC) of a stroke of the engine. In other words, RYU ‘393 teaches in fig. 4C that the IVC timing is after BDC.
However, the patent application to SATO ‘462 teaches a very similar control method for opening and closing the intake valve and exhaust valve of an engine wherein, based on a predetermined low torque region (see fig. 14-16), a controller (ECU 23; fig. 1) outputs a control signal to provide (i) an intake valve closing (IVC) timing to be before a bottom dead center (BDC) of a stroke of the engine (e.g., intake valve closing (IVC) timing curve is the second curve in the cited figures on the right-hand side between TDC – BDC; SATO ‘462 states: “The target valve closing timing map of FIG. 14 shows that the target valve closing timing of the intake valve becomes ABDC as the engine speed NE and the load F decrease….In the low rotation partial load region, as the load F decreases, the target valve closing timing of the intake valve is set to advance from BDC to, for example, BBDC 90 ° C … FIG. 15 shows an example of control in the case where the engine operating state is in a low-speed, low-load range (however, a load range higher than at the time of idling). FIG. An example of control in a load region (excluding the entire load region) is shown. As described above, when the engine operating state is in the low-speed, partial-load region, FIG. (A), As shown in FIG. 16 (a), the intake valve is closed earlier than the bottom dead center. In this way, if you close the intake valve earlier than the bottom dead center, the pumping loss can be reduced by reducing the effective compression ratio, and fuel efficiency can be improved. Note that FIG. 15-16, as shown in the control example, even if the intake valve is closed early and the effective compression ratio is reduced during the exhaust valve early closing control, the combustion state can be stabilized by the in-cylinder temperature rise by the exhaust valve early closing control. Thus, deterioration of the combustion state can be suppressed.”).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control method of RYU ‘393, such that, wherein, based on a predetermined low torque region, a controller outputs a control signal to provide (i) an intake valve closing (IVC) timing to be before a bottom dead center (BDC) of a stroke of the engine, as clearly suggested and taught by SATO ‘462, in order to reduce the pumping loss by reducing the effective compression ratio, and improve fuel efficiency.
Re claim 2, modified RYU ‘393 further teaches controlling an intake valve duration (e.g., see the entire right curve for INTAKE valve between TDC – BDC, as shown in figures 15-16 of SATO ‘462) for opening the intake valve to be within 180 degrees crank angle CA (i.e., the angle between TDC-BDC is 180 degrees as conventionally known to a person skilled in the art) in an entirety of the driving condition region (e.g., low-speed, low-load range).
Re claim 3, modified RYU ‘393 teaches the invention as essentially claimed except for wherein controlling the opening timing and the closing timing of each of the intake valve and the exhaust valve comprises: based on the driving condition region corresponding to the predetermined low speed-low torque region, outputting, by the controller, a control signal to control (i) the IVC timing to be 150 to 163 degrees CA from a top dead center (TDC) of the stroke of the engine and (ii) an exhaust valve duration for opening the exhaust valve to be less than 165 degrees CA. Specifically, RYU ‘393 teaches in figure 5A that the exhaust valve duration (EVD map) is more than 165 degrees CA. SATO ‘462 teaches in figures 15-16 that the IVC timing is 90 degrees CA from the TDC (i.e., before BDC (or BBDC) 90 degrees CA). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention provide both the exhaust valve duration and IVC timing as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re claim 4, modified RYU ‘393 teaches wherein controlling the opening timing and the closing timing of each of the intake valve and the exhaust valve comprises: outputting, by the controller 30, a control signal to control (ii) the exhaust valve and the intake valve to have a negative overlap (see par. 0022, 0063, 0078-0080 & 0083). SATO ‘462 teaches that the controller (ECU 23; fig. 1) outputs a control signal to control (i) the intake valve duration to be 180 degrees CA (see fig. 14-16). However, SATO ‘462 does not specifically teach the controller outputting a control signal to control (i) the intake valve duration to be 161 degrees to 175 degrees CA. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention provide the intake valve duration as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regards to claim(s) 5-20, the claim(s) is/are commensurate in scope with claim(s) 4-5, and is/are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. Note, as for the driving condition regions in claims 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 & 18-20, RYU ‘393 specifically teaches the control first – sixth regions in par. 0012 and figures 4A-5C. Again, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention provide the crank angle ranges as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,180,902. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both disclose a control method for opening and closing an intake valve and an exhaust valve of an engine.
Regarding claim 1:
Patent ‘902 discloses a control method for opening and closing an intake valve and an exhaust valve of an engine, the engine including an intake continuous variable valve duration (CVVD) apparatus that is disposed at an intake side of the engine, an intake continuous variable valve timing (CVVT) apparatus disposed at the intake side of the engine, an exhaust CVVD apparatus that is disposed at an exhaust side of the engine, and an exhaust CVVT apparatus disposed at the exhaust side of the engine (claim 1), the control method comprising:
determining , by a controller, a driving condition region among a predetermined plurality of driving condition regions that are defined by a speed of the engine and a torque of the engine (claim 1); and
controlling, by the controller, an opening timing and a closing timing of each of the intake valve and the exhaust valve based on the driving condition region of the engine by controlling of operations of the intake CVVD apparatus, the intake CVVT apparatus, the exhaust CVVD apparatus, and the exhaust CVVT apparatus (claim 1),
wherein controlling the opening timing and the closing timing of each of the intake valve and the exhaust valve comprises (claim 1):
based on the driving condition region corresponding to a predetermined low torque region (claim 1-2), outputting, by the controller, a control signal to provide (i) an intake valve closing (IVC) timing to be before a bottom dead center (BDC) of a stroke of the engine and (ii) an exhaust valve opening (EVO) timing to be before the BDC (claims 1-3).
Re claim 2:
Patent ‘902 discloses the control method of claim 1, further comprising: controlling an intake valve duration for opening the intake valve to be within 180 degrees crank angle (CA) in an entirety of the driving condition region (claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The various cited prior arts teach very similar control methods for opening and closing the intake and exhaust valves wherein the IVC is before BDC and EVO is also before BDC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-pm (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747