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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0014] recites “a hybrid vehicle structured to perform EV travel” (emphasis added). “EV” should not be abbreviated before being introduced in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 4
Lines 3 and 5-6 recite the language “EV travel”. For clarity, “EV” should not be abbreviated before being introduced as a claim limitation.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, US 2020/0284181, in view of Hall et al., US 2018/0179940.
Regarding Claim 1
Matsumoto discloses an exhaust system state determination method for an exhaust system including an internal combustion engine (1) mounted in a vehicle [automobile] and a differential pressure sensor (56) structured to measure a pressure loss at an exhaust particulate filter (54) disposed in an exhaust passage (52) of the internal combustion engine (1) (Matsumoto, [0003] and [0030], Figure 1), the exhaust system state determination method comprising:
determining that freezing in one of the differential pressure sensor (56) and a path (57, 58) structured to introduce pressure into the differential pressure sensor (56) is present (Matsumoto, ), in response to satisfaction of conditions that: an outside air temperature is equal to or lower than a predetermined temperature [utilizing an ambient temperature sensor (120)] (Matsumoto, [0043] and [0045], Figure 2).
However, Matsumoto does not disclose that the determination of freezing is in response to the internal combustion engine being temporarily stopped for a predetermined time period or longer.
Hall teaches that malperformance of a pressure sensor assembly [due to an iced condition] may be predicted based on ambient air temperatures and extended idling [being temporarily stopped for a period of time] (Hall, [0018]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a freezing [iced] condition of the differential pressure sensor in response to the internal combustion engine being temporarily stopped for a predetermined time period or longer [extended idling] as is taught by Hall as a well-known means of determining freezing [icing] in addition to the detection of ambient air temperatures (Hall, [0018]).
Regarding Claim 3
Matsumoto and Hall teach the exhaust system state determination method as claimed in claim 1. Hall further teaches that the temporary stopping of the internal combustion engine is performed by idle stopping (Hall, [0018]).
Regarding Claim 5
Matsumoto and Hall teach the exhaust system state determination method as claimed in claim 1. Hall further teaches that the predetermined time period is changed depending on the outside air temperature (Hall, [0032]).
Regarding Claim 7
Matsumoto discloses an exhaust system state determination device for an internal combustion engine (1) mounted in a vehicle [automobile] (Matsumoto, ), the exhaust system state determination device comprising:
an exhaust particulate filter (54) disposed in an exhaust passage (52) of the internal combustion engine (1) (Matsumoto, [0003] and [0030], Figure 1);
a differential pressure sensor (56) structured to measure a pressure loss at the exhaust particulate filter (54) (Matsumoto, [0003] and [0030], Figure 1); and
a determination section [100, engine control unit] configured to determine that freezing in one of the differential pressure sensor (56) and a path (57, 58) structured to introduce pressure into the differential pressure sensor (56) is present (Matsumoto, [0045], Figure 2), in response to satisfaction of conditions that: an outside air temperature is equal to or lower than a predetermined temperature (Matsumoto, [0043]-[0045], Figures 1-2).
However, Matsumoto does not disclose that the determination of freezing is in response to the internal combustion engine being temporarily stopped for a predetermined time period or longer, during driving of the vehicle.
Hall teaches that malperformance of a pressure sensor assembly [due to an iced condition] may be predicted based on ambient air temperatures and extended idling [being temporarily stopped for a period of time] (Hall, [0018]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a freezing [iced] condition of the differential pressure sensor in response to the internal combustion engine being temporarily stopped for a predetermined time period or longer [extended idling] as is taught by Hall as a well-known means of determining freezing [icing] in addition to the detection of ambient air temperatures (Hall, [0018]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, US 2020/0284181, in view of Hall et al., US 2018/0179940, and further in view of Smiddy et al., US 2017/0268462.
Regarding Claim 2
Matsumoto and Hall teach the exhaust system state determination method as claimed in claim 1. However, Matsumoto and Hall do not explicitly teach a timer configured to measure a duration time period of the temporary stopping of the internal combustion engine.
Smiddy teaches a duration timer configured to measure a duration time period of an idle mode of an engine (Smiddy, [0072]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the exhaust system state determination method of Matsumoto/Hall to include a timer to measure a duration time period of the temporary stopping of the internal combustion engine as is taught by Smiddy in order to keep track of the duration of an idle mode.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, US 2020/0284181, in view of Hall et al., US 2018/0179940, and further in view of Ando, JP 2014051153 A.
Regarding Claim 4
Matsumoto and Hall teach the exhaust system state determination method as claimed in claim 1. However, Matsumoto and Hall do not explicitly teach that the vehicle is structured to perform EV travel that is self-propelled travel with the internal combustion engine stopped; and the temporary stopping of the internal combustion engine is performed during the EV travel.
Ando teaches that a vehicle [hybrid vehicle] is structured to perform EV travel that is self-propelled travel with the internal combustion engine stopped (Ando, [0013]-[0015]); and the temporary stopping of the internal combustion engine is performed during the EV travel (Ando, [0013]-[0015]). Ando further teaches that icing/freezing can occur during the temporary stopping of the internal combustion engine (Ando, [0007]-[0008] and [0013]-[0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the stopping of the internal combustion engine during EV travel taught by Ando in place of the stopping of the internal combustion engine during idling as taught by Matsumoto/Hall, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06). [Icing/freezing of system components occurs during idling and EV travel conditions.]
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, US 2020/0284181, in view of Hall et al., US 2018/0179940, and further in view of Kitahara, US 2004/0226284.
Regarding Claim 6
Matsumoto and Hall teach the exhaust system state determination method as claimed in claim 1, the method further comprising:
calculating a first deposit amount based on an output signal of the differential pressure sensor (56) [it is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that an estimate of the soot accumulation is determined based on an outlet of the differential pressure sensor] (Matsumoto, [0003]-[0004]); and
suspending the calculation of the first deposit amount in response to satisfaction of a condition that the freezing in one of the differential pressure sensor (56) and the path (57, 58) structured to introduce pressure into the differential pressure sensor (56) is present (Matsumoto, [0045]).
However, Matsumoto does not disclose calculating a second deposit amount based on the operational status of the internal combustion engine, comparing and determining which of the first and second deposit amounts is larger, and utilizing the second deposition amount in response to freezing in the differential pressure sensor or path to introduce pressure to the differential pressure senor.
Kitahara teaches calculating a first deposit amount based on an output signal of an exhaust pressure sensor (24), calculating a second deposit amount based on the operational status of the internal combustion engine, and comparing the first and second deposit amounts (Kitahara, [0047]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Matsumoto/Hall to include calculating a second deposit amount based on the operational status of the internal combustion engine, and comparing the first and second deposit amounts as taught by Kitahara in order to ensure best treatment of the deposited exhaust particles (Kitahara, [0047]).
While the combination of Matsumoto, Hall, and Kitahara does not explicitly disclose determining the deposit amount of exhaust particles in the particulate filter with the second deposit amount when the calculation of the first deposit amount is suspended (due to freezing conditions), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to continue to detect the deposit amount in order to ensure efficient and safe operations of the particulate filter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights