DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-13 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, now U.S. Patent No. 12,152,523, 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).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0001] must be updated to reflect the issuance of the parent application as U.S. Patent No. 12,152,523.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 (POSITA) to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170342947 A1 to TONKIN; Steven W. et al. (hereinafter Tonkin) in view of US 20100201293 A1 to Yoshida; Takashi et al. (Yoshida).
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.).”
Regarding claim 1 Tonkin teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
555
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
518
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
541
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
649
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
669
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
435
530
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts an
an electric heater device (given the BRI “a vehicle” 200 is shown in Fig. 2 above comprising an electric heater device 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 converter structured to provide power to the electric heater device (given the BRI “a converter” connotes Air Heater Controller 204 shown in at least Fig. 3 above and described in for example only para:
“[0044] As seen by the dashed line, the battery 220 provides power to the starter 224, to the engine controller 216, and to the air heater controller 204, which selectively connects that power to the air heater 208. Meanwhile, the solid lines show the ground connections of the battery to a frame 228 of the truck 200 as well as to the engine controller 216. In some vehicles, the engine 212 is grounded to the frame 228. This is simply one grounding configuration shown for example, and the principles of the present disclosure are not limited to this configuration.”);
and a monitoring system including:
a first voltage measuring device structured to measure an input voltage at an input terminal of the converter (given the BRI connotes shunt 304 and current monitor 308 shown in fig. 3 and described in for example only para:
“[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.”);
a second voltage measuring device structured to measure an output voltage at an output terminal of the converter (given the BRI connotes voltage monitor 320 as described in for example only para:
“[0051] A voltage monitor 320 measures the load voltage—that is, the voltage at the node between the power switches 300 and the air heater 208. The voltage monitor 320 may need to measure a voltage that is as much as 500 mV below the ground of the air heater controller 204 when determining the effective ground voltage seen by the air heater 208.
[0052] A short circuit protection circuit 324 outputs a disable signal to the PWM driver 316 if the voltage measured by the voltage monitor 320 is too low. If there is a short circuit or a partial short circuit in the air heater 208, the voltage measured by the voltage monitor 320 will be much lower than normal. For example, the expected voltage across the air heater 208 may be 10 or 11 volts and the threshold may therefore be set at five volts. The short circuit protection circuit 324 may operate in the analog domain and provide quicker response than a microprocessor, which may need to startup and execute boot code before assessing the voltage from the voltage monitor 320.”);
a current measuring device structured to measure an input current at the input terminal (given the BRI see “current monitor 308” above);
and a controller structured to determine an output current at the output terminal based on the input voltage measured at the input terminal (via current monitor 308 and para [0047]),
the input current measured at the input terminal (via current monitor 308 and para [0047]),
and the output voltage measured at the output terminal (via Voltage Monitor 320 and paras [0051-52] given the BRI connotes Air Heater Controller 204 as explained above as well as in for example only paras:
“[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.”).
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “an aftertreatment” 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.
Further, the claim limitations “an aftertreatment” connote a “desired” or “intended use” to which a POSITA understands a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As is here, the prior art is capable of performing the intended use.
Tonkin does not appear to expressly disclose and a controller structured to determine an output current at the output terminal based on a predicted loss value of the converter.
In analogous art Yoshida teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image7.png
596
507
media_image7.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts a controller structured to determine an output current at the output terminal based on a predicted loss value of the converter (in for example paras:
“[0230] In the case where such predicted values are employed, the excess-time torque limit value and the abrupt-variation-time torque limit value may be calculated on the basis of the following formulas in place of Formulas 5 and 6 cited above.
Excess-time torque limit value [Nm]=(excess-time limit electric power-generator electric power predicted value-motor loss-booster converter loss-capacitor charge electric power)/[(2.pi./60).times.motor speed predicted value] Formula 23
Abrupt-variation-time torque limit value [Nm]=(abrupt-variation-time limit electric power-generator electric power predicted value-motor loss-booster converter loss-capacitor charge electric power)/[(2.pi./60).times.motor speed predicted value] Formula 24.“).
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 a controller structured to determine an output current at the output terminal based on a predicted loss value of the converter disclosed in Yoshida with the estimation taught in Tonkin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have taken into account the losses within the converter to ensure that the heater was actually receiving the amount of power necessary to reach the desired temperature of the heater wire and as per Yoshida para:
“[0231] It is possible to perform control with higher accuracy by using such predicted values”
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the electric heater device includes a resistive heater (see Tonkin “resistor 348” in Fig. 3 and Para [0062] above).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the controller includes the first voltage measuring device, the second voltage measuring device, and the current measuring device (see Tonkin Fig. 3, Air controller 204 and associated descriptive texts).
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the converter is a phase converter (given the BRI see Tonkin Fig. 3 and associated descriptive texts, wherein Air controller 204 and power switches 300 connote phases converting batter power to the voltage necessary to drive the heater to the temperature required).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the converter is a power converter (given the BRI see Tonkin Fig. 3 and associated descriptive texts, wherein Air controller 204 and power switches 300 connote phases converting batter power to the voltage necessary to drive the heater to the temperature required).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further structured to determine the output current by calculating an input power based on the input voltage and the input current, reduce the input power by the predicted loss value to estimate an output power, and calculate the output current by dividing the estimated output power by the output voltage (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Yoshida to estimate the power as claimed for the purpose of ensuring the proper temperature of the heating element).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further structured to report the determined output current to a control system of the vehicle (see the teachings of Tonkin with regard to inter alia Engine controller 216 and the bidirectional line between 216 and 204 as well as “short circuit protection”:
“[0052] A short circuit protection circuit 324 outputs a disable signal to the PWM driver 316 if the voltage measured by the voltage monitor 320 is too low. If there is a short circuit or a partial short circuit in the air heater 208, the voltage measured by the voltage monitor 320 will be much lower than normal. For example, the expected voltage across the air heater 208 may be 10 or 11 volts and the threshold may therefore be set at five volts. The short circuit protection circuit 324 may operate in the analog domain and provide quicker response than a microprocessor, which may need to startup and execute boot code before assessing the voltage from the voltage monitor 320.”).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation an aftertreatment system for a vehicle, comprising:
an electric heater device;
a converter structured to provide power to the electric heater device;
and a monitoring system including:
a voltage measuring device structured to measure an input voltage at an input terminal of the converter;
a current measuring device structured to measure an input current at the input terminal;
and a controller structured to determine an output current at an output terminal of the converter based on the input voltage measured at the input terminal, the input current measured at the input terminal, and an operation condition of the converter (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that an over-current condition of Tonkin connotes the operation condition of the converter as claimed).
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 8, wherein the electric heater device includes a resistive heater (see Tonkin above resistor 348).
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 8, wherein the controller includes the voltage measuring device and the current measuring device (see Tonkin above, e.g. para [0052] with regard to short circuit of the air heater).
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 8, wherein the controller is further structured to report the determined output current to a control system of the vehicle (see Tonkin above, e.g. para [0052] with regard to short circuit of the air heater).
Claims 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170342947 A1 to TONKIN; Steven W. et al. (hereinafter Tonkin) in view of US 20100201293 A1 to Yoshida; Takashi et al. (Yoshida) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20160118895 A1 to Mahmoudi; Farsheed et al. (hereinafter Mahmoudi).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Tonkin teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 8 above incorporated herein by reference the limitations the aftertreatment system of claim 8, wherein the converter is a phase converter (in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 4 above incorporated herein by reference).
The combination of Tonkin does not appear to expressly disclose the operation condition is an efficiency value of the phase converter.
In analogous art Mahmoudi teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image8.png
589
795
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
342
682
media_image9.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts wherein a converter that is a phase converter, and the operation condition is an efficiency value of the phase converter (in for example paras:
“[0009] Disclosed herein are embodiments of a circuit and a method for providing a high level of efficiency over a wide range of loads using pulse width modulation (PWM). A feedback loop includes a synchronous buck converter that has multiple phases and each phase has multiple switching legs. It is known beforehand which combinations of legs and phases provide higher levels of efficiency for a given load value. As the feedback loop operates and as the load value changes, current sensors feed back a value of the current (a proxy for the load) to a controller which selects a number of switching legs and phases appropriate for that particular load value.”).
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 converter disclosed in Mahmoudi with the converter taught in the combination of Tonkin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “to increased efficiency” as taught by Mahmoudi Para(s):
“[0004] Energy efficiency of such systems may be defined, for example, as input current divided by output current, where a value of one would be 100% efficiency. Various conventional voltage converters show different efficiencies at different load currents. Furthermore, while some conventional systems may activate more of the buck converters to handle more current, simply activating more buck converters for a given amount of power consumption may not increase efficiency and, in fact, may decrease efficiency in some scenarios. Accordingly, there is a need to increase efficiency of a multi-phase buck converter over a wide range of load values.”.
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation the aftertreatment system of claim 8, wherein the controller determines the output current using an efficiency model lookup table (see the obviousness to combine Figure 3 of Mahmoudi with the combination of Tonkin in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 8 immediately above incorporated herein by reference).
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 heater power electronics at the time of the invention. For example:
US 5093583 A to Mashino; Keiichi et al. teaches, inter alia an Electric power supply system for automobile in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“This specification discloses an electric power supply system for an automobile having a load which needs a higher voltage than the normal battery voltage. The electric power supply system of the present invention includes: a multi-phase AC generator having an armature winding, a field winding, a first rectifier for rectifying a multi-phase AC output of the armature winding, and a voltage regulation circuit for controlling a current in the field winding in accordance with a control signal to regulate an output voltage of the first rectifier; a battery charged by a DC output voltage of the first rectifier; a low-voltage load to be powered by the battery; a multi-phase transformer including a primary winding connected to a multi-phase AC output of the armature winding and a secondary winding for inducing a secondary multi-phase voltage higher than the voltage in the primary winding, the primary and secondary windings being electrically insulated from each other; a second rectifier for rectifying the multi-phase secondary voltage from the multi-phase transformer; and a high-voltage load to be powered by a DC output of the second rectifier.”.
US 20080028753 A1 to Wagner; Wayne M. et al. teaches, inter alia Exhaust Treatment Device with Electric Regeneration System in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image10.png
442
679
media_image10.png
Greyscale
“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 20220243631 A1 to Swart; Charles Wayne Reinhardt teaches, inter alia AN ALTERNATOR MODULATION FOR CONTROL OF EXHAUST HEATING ELEMENT in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image11.png
683
803
media_image11.png
Greyscale
“Systems and methods for modulating power provided to a heating element of a vehicle exhaust system is provided. One system includes a controller controlling a switch, and an alternator having a first field terminal input, wherein the first field terminal input is connected to the switch. The system further includes a heating element connected to at least an output of the alternator. The controller is configured to determine a power demand for the electric heating element and modulate the first field terminal input to cause the alternator to provide power to the heating element according to the power demand.”.
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