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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, the semicolon after “comprising” should be deleted.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEWANDOWSKI et al. (US 2023/0325168 A1) in view of GWIDT et al. (US 11,773,791 B1).
Re claim 1, LEWANDOWSKI ‘168 discloses a vehicle (706, 708, 710) with an engine (see Fig. 7; par. 0067-0070), the vehicle comprising:
an engine control unit 722 (fig. 7) configured to control the engine in a circuit mode in which a traveling performance of the vehicle is improved (e.g., increased performance mode for racetrack according to locations stored in “listing 204” in accordance with use case 200 embodiment shown in fig. 2; see also par. 0039), on a basis of a request transmitted from a portable terminal 704 (e.g., mobile device 704 of the user; see fig. 7; par. 0040-0042, as well as par. 0067 & 0069), when the portable terminal 704 (fig. 7) operated by a user of the vehicle determines that a current position (e.g., racetrack in accordance to listing 204 based on vehicle location data) of the vehicle equipped with the engine is in a circuit (e.g., racetrack; see specifically par. 0039-0042).
However, LEWANDOWSKI ‘168 fails to teach, either implicitly or explicitly, wherein the engine control unit is configured to reject switching to the circuit mode regardless of the request, when the engine control unit determines that a part of combustion conditions among all combustion conditions for stable combustion of fuel supplied to the engine in the circuit mode is not satisfied.
It is duly noted that it is notoriously known in the art to limit a vehicle’s operation when an abnormality is recognized by the vehicle’s ECU. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as being called a “limp mode” or a “safe or safety mode”, limiting the rpms or overall performance of an engine to prevent more damage.
The patent to GWIDT ‘791 teaches initiating a limp mode when there is an issue with the fuel injectors. Thus, the reference GWIDT ‘791 deals with a limp mode being activated when the engine control unit determines that there is an issue with the engine’s combustion conditions, i.e., fuel injection system, that could lead to less than ideal combustion.
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 engine control unit of LEWANDOWSKI ‘168, such that the engine control unit is further configured to reject switching to the circuit mode regardless of the request, when the engine control unit determines that a part of combustion conditions among all combustion conditions for stable combustion of fuel supplied to the engine in the circuit mode is not satisfied, as suggested by GWIDT ‘791, in order to prevent the vehicle from operating in other enhanced modes to protect the engine from more damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Other prior arts such as, ROSENBERGER (DE 102017207897 A1), HAN (US 10961945 B1), BERG (US 20190316554 A1) and FAIED (US 20190136782 A1) are also considered pertinent prior art that teach the claimed invention.
ROSENBERGER teaches a method comprises: detecting a location of the vehicle, checking whether the location of the vehicle corresponds to a racetrack, transmitting a driving profile signal to at least one engine control unit of the vehicle, setting a racing profile or normal profile in the at least one engine control unit depending on the received driving profile signal, and operating the drive train in the racing profile or normal profile.
HAN teaches a limp mode due to a malfunction of a high pressure pump of the fuel system. Col 4 lines 49-54.
BERG teaches a limp mode when there is an issue with the LP fuel system. Para 52.
FAIED teaches a limp mode when a combustion seal leaks Para 20.
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