DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-17 as originally presented and filed on 11/13/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is May 16, 2021 (20210516).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Application Serial No. 17/645,626, filed December 22, 2021, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/189,213, filed May 16, 2021, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/189,212, filed May 16, 2021 (“Parent Application(s)”). See MPEP §201.07[R-08.2017]. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 [R-07.2015] Section A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b)[R-08.2017] (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) [R-08.2017] (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 [R-07.2015] Section A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170342947 A1 to TONKIN; Steven W. et al. (hereinafter Tonkin).
Regarding claim 1 Tonkin teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
411
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
452
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
735
521
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
738
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
548
651
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a) system of a vehicle, comprising:
an electric heater device (given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) a Person of Ordinary Skill In the Art (POSITA) would have seen in the figures above, a vehicle/truck 200 comprising electric heater 208 as explained in for example para:
“[0043] Returning to the figures, FIG. 2 shows selected ground and power connections in a truck 200 configured with an air heater controller 204 and an air heater 208, according to the principles of the present disclosure. The air heater 208 selectively heats air being provided to an engine 212. The air heater controller 204 may be activated by engine controller 216. The air heater controller 204 provides current to the air heater 208 from a battery 220. A starter 224 selectively rotates the crankshaft of the engine and is also powered by the battery 220. While different reference numerals are used, the air heater controller 204 may be configured for use with the engine controller 112 and the air heater 108 of FIG. 1. In other words, the engine controller 112 may not need new programming in order to work with the air heater controller 204 of the present disclosure.”);
a power converter structured to provide power to the electric heater device (as shown in the figures above, especially Fig. 3, heater 208 is provided power via power converter/heater controller 204 through “one or more power switches 300” as explained in for example paras:
“[0047] In FIG. 3, an example implementation of the air heater controller 204 includes one or more power switches 300 that selectively connect the battery 220 to the air heater 208. A shunt resistor 304 may be placed in series with the power switches 300 and a voltage across the shunt resistor 304 is measured by a current monitor 308 to determine the amount of current flowing through the power switches 300.
[0048] The power switches 300 are arranged in parallel and may be controlled by the same gate signal. The power switches 300 may be included in a single package or in multiple packages that are thermally connected to a heat sink, such as an enclosure of the air heater controller 204. A thermal connection 312 is shown for illustration in FIG. 3 and may take the form of direct metal-to-metal contact or a thermal paste.”),
the power converter including at least one phase converter, each phase converter including:
a first plurality of switching devices coupled together in parallel (given the BRI connotes the power switches 300 in fig. 3);
and a second plurality of switching devices coupled together in parallel (given the BRI connotes the switches inside PWM Driver 316 in fig. 3 as explained in for example para:
“[0050] The power switches 300 are driven by a pulse-width modulation (PWM) driver 316. For example, during an initial power-up phase, the duty cycle of the PWM may be set to 100% so that the power switches 300 remain on constantly to provide power to the air heater 208. The PWM driver 316 may control the power switches 300 to produce shaped pulses to avoid producing excessive electrical emissions. For more information, see U.S. Pat. No. 7,472,695, issued Jan. 6, 2009, titled “Controller for Air Intake Heater,”, with first-named inventor Andrew Prust, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated by reference.”);
wherein the second plurality of switching devices is coupled in series with the first plurality of switching devices (as shown in Fig. 3 the PWM driver is in series with and also controls power switches 300),
and wherein a number of the first plurality of switching devices is different from a number of the second plurality of switching devices (given the BRI as shown in Fig. 3 there is one PWM driver controlling 3 (three) power switches 300).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
Tonkin does not appear to expressly disclose an aftertreatment system of a vehicle (emphasis added) however when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “An aftertreatment system of a vehicle” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, further comprising:
a converter controller structured to apply a first duty cycle to the first plurality of switching devices and a second duty cycle to the second plurality of switching devices (given the BRI the PWM driver 316 is controlled by duty cycle from control circuit 328 while the second is controlled by the PWM drivers as explained in for example para:
“[0053] A control circuit 328, which as described below may be a programmable logic device, a microprocessor and memory, etc., receives the measured voltage and the measured current and instructs the PWM driver 316 with a commanded duty cycle. The PWM driver 316 may send back an indication of when the power switches 300 are off. The control circuit 328 may then take voltage measurements while the power switches 300 are off in order to determine the effective ground voltage seen by the air heater 208.”).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 2, wherein the first duty cycle is a 25% duty cycle and the second duty cycle is a 75% duty cycle (it is understood that a POSITA would have understood that the commanded duty cycle can be any range including that claimed in order to obtain the desired heat level that matches the duty cycle, see the teachings of paras:
“[0053] A control circuit 328, which as described below may be a programmable logic device, a microprocessor and memory, etc., receives the measured voltage and the measured current and instructs the PWM driver 316 with a commanded duty cycle. The PWM driver 316 may send back an indication of when the power switches 300 are off. The control circuit 328 may then take voltage measurements while the power switches 300 are off in order to determine the effective ground voltage seen by the air heater 208.”).
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 2, wherein the controller applies the first duty cycle and the second duty cycle independently (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 3 and 2 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that the PWM Driver 316 has a different duty cycle that the power switches 300 and the control circuit controls the duty cycle of the PWM driver 316 independently from the duty cycles of the power switches 300).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein:
each of the first plurality of switching devices are coupled together in parallel between an input terminal of the power converter and an output terminal of the power converter (the Examiner posits that a POSITA would understand that the position of the PWM driver in Fig. 3 above with relation to both the battery 220 and power switches 300 connotes the claimed limitations);
and each of the second plurality of switching devices are coupled together in parallel between the output terminal and a ground (the Examiner posits that a POSITA would understand that the position of power switches 300 in Fig. 3 above with relation to battery 220 and the ground inside air heater 208 connotes the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 6, wherein the power converter is structured to receive power having a first voltage at the input terminal, decrease the first voltage to a second voltage,
and provide a converted power having the second voltage at the output terminal (the Examiner posits that air heater controller 204 converts power from battery 220 in the manner claimed via inter alia the PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) of the PWM Driver 316 and Power switches 300 wherein it is understood that a POSITA understands that the actual voltage seen at the output side of the power switches 300 is a portion of the voltage of the battery directly related and based on the amount of the selected duty cycle).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the electric heater device includes a resistive heater (See Fig. 3 above
resistor 348 and paras:
PNG
media_image6.png
167
160
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“[0061] In FIG. 3, while the intrinsic connection resistances are not shown, the resistance of the element in the air heater 208 is shown schematically as a resistor 348. Meanwhile, the battery 220 may be characterized by an internal resistance (not shown), which may be one indication of the health of the battery 220. The control circuit 328 may measure a first voltage of the battery 220 with the power switches 300 off. For example, the control circuit 328 may receive a voltage value of one of the terminals of the shunt resistor 304 measured by the current monitor 308. The control circuit 328 can then turn on the power switches 300 and measure a second voltage of the battery 220 and the current through the shunt resistor 304. The internal resistance of the battery can then be calculated by the control circuit 328 as the difference between the first and second voltages divided by the current.
[0062] When the voltage measured by the voltage monitor 320 is divided by the current measured by the current monitor 308, the resulting resistance will be approximately equal to a resistance of the resistor 348 plus the connection resistances experienced between the air heater controller 204 and the air heater 208 as well as the air heater 208 back to the battery 220.“).
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the power converter includes a plurality of the phase converters (given the BRI each power switch 300 connotes a “phase converter” see Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 12, wherein the power converter is structured to operate a subset of the plurality of phase converters in response to at least one of a converter condition or a condition of the electric heater device (a POSITA would understand that “one or more power switches 300 that selectively connect the battery 220 to the air heater 208. “connotes that the number of power switches or duty cycle is chosen to obtain the desired heating level from the air heater as taught in for example only paras:
“[0047] In FIG. 3, an example implementation of the air heater controller 204 includes one or more power switches 300 that selectively connect the battery 220 to the air heater 208. A shunt resistor 304 may be placed in series with the power switches 300 and a voltage across the shunt resistor 304 is measured by a current monitor 308 to determine the amount of current flowing through the power switches 300.
[0048] The power switches 300 are arranged in parallel and may be controlled by the same gate signal. The power switches 300 may be included in a single package or in multiple packages that are thermally connected to a heat sink, such as an enclosure of the air heater controller 204. A thermal connection 312 is shown for illustration in FIG. 3 and may take the form of direct metal-to-metal contact or a thermal paste.“.
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 14, wherein:
the power converter is structured to operate the subset of the plurality of phase converters in response to the converter condition;
and the converter condition is based on at least one of a current balance threshold (given the BRI connotes the current monitor 308 and over-temperature protection taught in for example paras:
“[0047] In FIG. 3, an example implementation of the air heater controller 204 includes one or more power switches 300 that selectively connect the battery 220 to the air heater 208. A shunt resistor 304 may be placed in series with the power switches 300 and a voltage across the shunt resistor 304 is measured by a current monitor 308 to determine the amount of current flowing through the power switches 300.
[0062] When the voltage measured by the voltage monitor 320 is divided by the current measured by the current monitor 308, the resulting resistance will be approximately equal to a resistance of the resistor 348 plus the connection resistances experienced between the air heater controller 204 and the air heater 208 as well as the air heater 208 back to the battery 220.
[0077] At 632, control sets the PWM to zero percent, thereby stopping the supply of current to the air heater. Control also indicates an error back to the engine controller and ends. At 672, control determines whether the resistance indicates an over-temperature condition. If so, control transfers to 632; otherwise, control transfers to 628. An over-temperature condition is indicated by the measure resistance being greater than the limit. For example, the limit may be based on a previously-measured connection resistance plus the resistance of the heater at a temperature that is considered to be too high. The connection resistance from prior startups may be increased by a predetermined percentage (such as 10% or 20%) to prevent false positives in the over-temperature check.”).
Regarding claim 17 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of switching devices and each of the second plurality of switching devices is a field effect transistor (FET) (see para:
“[0101] In this application, including the definitions below, the term “module” or the term “controller” may be replaced with the term “circuit.” The term “module” may refer to, be part of, or include: an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC); a digital, analog, or mixed analog/digital discrete circuit; a digital, analog, or mixed analog/digital integrated circuit; a combinational logic circuit; a field programmable gate array (FPGA); a processor circuit (shared, dedicated, or group) that executes code; a memory circuit (shared, dedicated, or group) that stores code executed by the processor circuit; other suitable hardware components that provide the described functionality; or a combination of some or all of the above, such as in a system-on-chip.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 5, 9-11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170342947 A1 to TONKIN; Steven W. et al. (hereinafter Tonkin) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20230268844 A1 TO MENZI; David et al. (hereinafter Menzi) and further in view of MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 2, wherein the controller applies the first duty cycle and the second duty cycle such that the first plurality of switching devices is on when the second plurality of switching devices is off (given the BRI, it is considered that the PWM driver 316 may be on when the power switches 300 are off as shown in the teachings of para:
“[0053] A control circuit 328, which as described below may be a programmable logic device, a microprocessor and memory, etc., receives the measured voltage and the measured current and instructs the PWM driver 316 with a commanded duty cycle. The PWM driver 316 may send back an indication of when the power switches 300 are off. The control circuit 328 may then take voltage measurements while the power switches 300 are off in order to determine the effective ground voltage seen by the air heater 208.”),
Tonkin does not appear to expressly disclose and the first plurality of switching devices is off when the second plurality of switching devices is on.
In analogous art Menzi teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image7.png
432
666
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
464
562
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
722
577
media_image9.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts a first plurality of switching devices is off when a second plurality of switching devices is on (in for example paras:
“[0066] The duty cycles d.sub.A and d.sub.B are fed into both half-bridges of stage 12 and 13 respectively. During PWM operation of either stage 12 and 13, the active switches arranged at opposite positions in the bridge are operated in inverse synchronized mode, e.g. when T.sub.A1 is turned on, T′.sub.A1 is turned off and vice versa. Same holds for the switch pairs T.sub.A2and T′.sub.A2, T.sub.B1 and T′.sub.B1, T.sub.B2 and T′.sub.B2. The PWM control signals for the active switches can be generated in a known manner using, for the case of two switch pairs for each half-bridge, 180° phase shifted PWM carriers for the outer (i.e. T.sub.A1 and T′.sub.A1 in stage 12) and inner (i.e. T.sub.A2 and T′.sub.A2 in stage 12) half-bridges of each stage (FIG. 3). More generally, if the stage comprises M−1 flying capacitors C.sub.fj with j=1, 2, . . . , M−1, the PWM control signals for driving two consecutive switch pairs can be phase shifted by 360°/M. By doing so, the inductor current L.sub.a equally charges and discharges the flying capacitors during one switching period and natural balancing of the flying capacitor voltages can be obtained. As a result, M+1 different voltage levels can be obtained at the switch node.
[0095] In an alternative embodiment to the above topology and control strategy, the topology of FIG. 2 can be changed by replacing switch T′.sub.A1 with a bidirectional switch. Referring again to FIG. 3, the bidirectional switch can be turned off between time positions {circle around (2)} and {circle around (4)}, hence preventing discharge of C.sub.fA. This allows U.sub.fA to remain constant in boost operation. This embodiment, however, would increase the component count and possibly lead to increased conduction losses compared to the previous case.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling the switches disclosed in Menzi with the method of controlling the power switches 300 taught in Tonkin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have only energized those switches necessary to achieve the desired power level and ergo temperature of the air heater. Energizing only one switch would save energy and limit wear on the switch as FET’s are prone to electromigration. A POSITA understands that:
“Electromigration is defined as the phenomenon where metal atoms migrate due to the combined effects of high temperatures and electric current, resulting in issues such as voids and protrusions that can weaken conductors and lead to circuit failures.”
While the combination of Tonkin appears to teach the invention as claimed and explained above, if applicant is of the opinion that said combination does not expressly disclose the claimed invention with regard to which switches are on and which switches are off then resort may be had to MPEP 2144.04 section IV.C.Changes in Sequence of Adding Ingredients:
See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results);
And VI.REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS, specifically section C. Rearrangement of Parts
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As is here, the Examiner considers that a POSITA would find it an obvious matter of design choice to “select any order of performing the process steps” of determining which switches to turn on or off. The Prior art of record clearly teaches it is well known in the art that PWM turns on and off switches. Further, selecting one switch to turn on over another is well known in the electrical industry to provide for equal wear on components throughout the lifespan of a circuit and would provide no new or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 9 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the number of the first plurality of switching devices is greater than the number of the second plurality of switching devices (the combination of Tonkin does not appear to expressly disclose, however MPEP 2144.04 teaches it was an obvious matter of design choice known to a POSITA to determine the number of switches to be used in designing a circuit as no new or unexpected result would be obtained by adding or subtracting the number of switches in a circuit).
See MPEP 2144.04.VI.REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS B. Duplication of Parts:
“In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.“
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein a ratio of the number of the first plurality of switching devices to the number of the second plurality of switching devices is 2:1 (the combination of Tonkin does not appear to expressly disclose, however MPEP 2144.04 teaches it was an obvious matter of design choice known to a POSITA to determine the number of switches to be used in designing a circuit as no new or unexpected result would be obtained by adding or subtracting the number of switches in a circuit).
See MPEP 2144.04.VI.REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS B. Duplication of Parts:
“In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.“
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 3, wherein the number of the first plurality of switching devices is four, and the number of the second plurality of switching devices is two (the combination of Tonkin does not appear to expressly disclose, however MPEP 2144.04 teaches it was an obvious matter of design choice known to a POSITA to determine the number of switches to be used in designing a circuit as no new or unexpected result would be obtained by adding or subtracting the number of switches in a circuit).
See MPEP 2144.04.VI.REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS B. Duplication of Parts:
“In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.“
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 12, wherein the power converter includes four or six of the phase converters (the combination of Tonkin does not appear to expressly disclose, however MPEP 2144.04 teaches it was an obvious matter of design choice known to a POSITA to determine the number of switches to be used in designing a circuit as no new or unexpected result would be obtained by adding or subtracting the number of switches in a circuit).
See MPEP 2144.04.VI.REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS B. Duplication of Parts:
“In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.“
Regarding claim 16 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 14, wherein the power converter is structured to time shift a duty cycle for one phase converter of the plurality of phase converters relative to a duty cycle of another phase converter of the plurality of phase converters (the combination of Tonkin does not appear to expressly disclose, however MPEP 2144.04.A.B. and C. teach it would have been an obvious matter of design choice known to a POSITA to shift the duty cycle as claimed as no new or unexpected result would be obtained by reversing or rearranging which phase converter is “on or off” based on the duty cycle).
See MPEP 2144.04.VI.REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS A. Reversal of Parts
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
B. Duplication of Parts:
“In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.“
C. Rearrangement of Parts
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of vehicle heaters and aftertreatment systems at the time of the invention. For example:
US 4482008 A to Nomaguchi; Tamotsu et al. teaches, inter alia an Air conditioner operable in a room cooling mode and a room warming mode using either outdoor air or a separate heat source as a source of heat in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“The disclosed airconditioner has a refrigerant compressor connected to a refrigerant circuit through a four-way valve in each of the room cooling mode and a first room warming mode of operation. The refrigerant circuit has an indoor heat exchanger, an externally heated heat exchanger, a piping, a first electromagnetic valve and an outdoor heat exchanger connected in series. A second electromagnetic valve is connected in parallel to the outdoor heat exchanger between the piping and the four-way valve to form the refrigerant circuit along with the indoor heat exchanger, the externally heated heat exchanger and the piping for the second room warming mode of operation. During the room cooling mode and first room warming mode of operation, the first electromagnetic valve is opened and the piping and the externally heated heat exchanger hold an amount of liquid refrigerant equal to the volume of the outdoor heat exchanger, while in the second room warming mode of operation in which the second electromagnetic valve and an electromagnetic valve connected across the compressor are open the outdoor heat exchange is filled with liquid refrigerant.”.
US 20060150959 A1 to Prust; Andrew J. et al. teaches, inter alia a Controller for air intake heater in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“An air intake heater system includes an air heater adapted to be positioned in communication with an intake passageway of an engine and a controller. The controller is operable to repeatedly supply current and discontinue the supply of current to provide a desired energy output of the air heater.”.
US 7548042 B2 to Fassnacht; Jochen teaches, inter alia a DC-DC converter device and method for operating the dc-dc converter of a motor vehicle on-board electrical system in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A DC-DC converter system having a DC-DC converter including a power transistor and a control unit is provided, which control unit provides control signals for triggering the power transistor. The DC-DC converter is operable in two operating modes: in a first operating mode, the DC-DC converter operates at high efficiency; and in a second operating mode, the DC-DC converter operates at low efficiency. The high power loss released in the second operating mode is used in the warm-up phase after the start of a motor vehicle engine as an additional heating system.”.
US 20080028753 A1 to Wagner; Wayne M. et al. teaches, inter alia an Exhaust Treatment Device with Electric Regeneration System in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“The present disclosure relates to a diesel exhaust treatment device including a catalytic converter positioned upstream from a diesel particulate filter. An electric heater is positioned between the catalytic converter and the diesel particulate filter. A shore station can be used to provide power and combustion air to the diesel exhaust treatment device during regeneration of the diesel particulate filter.”.
US 20120003131 A1 to Ibrahim; Osama et al. teaches, inter alia an INTEGRATED DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTER AND ELECTRIC LOAD BANK in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“An apparatus for dissipating energy into the exhaust gas of an internal combustion engine includes a container for confining a flow path for exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine where the container has an inlet and an outlet. A porous, electrically conductive mesh is placed in the container such that exhaust gas can flow through the conductive mesh. At least two electrical terminals are in permanent electrical contact with the conductive mesh. An electrical power supply completes an electrical circuit through the conductive mesh with the power supply having two or more electrical outputs electrically connected to an equal number of electrical terminals on the conductive mesh. The apparatus provides a filter, heater, electrical load and silencer.”.
US 20230146546 A1 to Marcinkiewicz; Joseph G. et al. teaches, inter alia Motor Drive Control Including Varying DC Bus Voltages, Converter and Inverter Switching Frequencies, And Motor Speed For Thermal Mitigation in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“In other features, a refrigeration system is provided and includes a compressor motor, an inverter, a converter and a control module. The inverter is configured to convert a direct current (DC) bus voltage to an alternating current (AC) voltage and supply the AC voltage to the compressor motor. The converter is configured to convert a DC input voltage to the DC bus voltage. The control module is configured to obtain a parameter and in response to the parameter exceeding a predetermined threshold, reduce the DC bus voltage and at least one of (i) reduce a switching frequency, (ii) increase an amount of negative d-axis current of the compressor motor, or (iii) reduce a speed of the compressor motor.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260207