DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is the initial office action based on the 19/066,256 application filed February 28, 2025. Claims 1-12 are pending and have been fully considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second drive (see, i.e., Claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in this application because Figure 2 shows only generic flow charts or block diagrams with no information presented in each element of the chart/diagram. Applicants' invention is unclear from the drawings because a number of methods/devices may fit the same chart/diagram. The unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. See MPEP 608.02, FP 6.22, Examiner note 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-12 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Concerning Claim 8, Examiner suggests amending the last portion of the claim to read --ambient temperature, and late injection parameter--. Appropriate correction is required.
Concerning Claims 9 and 11, the reference character for critical temperature is “T” followed by several squares. Examiner suggests amending this to read ---Tkrit--for consistency with the disclosure.
Concerning Claim 10, Examiner suggests amending the last portion of the claim to read --traffic data, and charging of the electrical energy store (16)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Concerning Claim 12. Examiner suggests amending “a method according to claim 1” to read --the method according to claim 1--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “low-load” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See paragraph [0030] broadly explains “low load” but does not provide specific values that one of ordinary skill in the art could use to ascertain the scope of the claims. Therefore, Claim 1 is indefinite since it fails to set forth a claim that “clearly and precisely inform[s] persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter” (see MPEP § 2173).
Furthermore, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the drive" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear to which drive this limitation is referring, the first drive or the second drive that are previously provided.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Concerning Claim 4, the claim recites “appropriate heating measure”. This is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraphs [0004] and [0011] merely restated the noted limitation without provided detail as to what exactly is appropriate. Therefore, Claim 4 is indefinite since it fails to set forth a claim that “clearly and precisely inform[s] persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter” (see MPEP § 2173).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the predictive data" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, “predictive data” is initially set forth in Claim 6, and it is unclear if Claim 10 should instead depend from Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 10 is indefinite since it fails to set forth a claim that “clearly and precisely inform[s] persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter” (see MPEP § 2173). For examination purposes, Examiner is interpreting Claim 10 as being dependent from Claim 6.
The remainder of the dependent claims not addressed are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Volmerding et al. (WO 2021086490 A1, herein “Volmerding).
Regarding Claim 1, Volmerding discloses a method for operating a motor vehicle (1) having a hybrid drive (see paragraph [0018]), wherein the motor vehicle (1) includes a first drive having an electric motor associated with an electrical energy store (see paragraph [0035] energy storage device (20) can be batteries and bay be structures to provide the stored electrical energy to an electromagnetic device that provides mechanical output to a transmission (30)), and a second drive as an internal combustion engine (10) having an exhaust aftertreatment system (100) (see paragraph [0037], aftertreatment system (100) includes a housing (101) defining an internal volume within which a SCR catalyst (150) is disposed).
Furthermore, Volmerding disclose that the method includes detecting a low-load phase for the drive of the motor vehicle (1) (see paragraph [0060], “the controller 170 may also be configured to adjust a load distribution between the engine 10 and the energy storage device 20 based on the load demand from the hybrid vehicle, a location of the hybrid vehicle 1 on the route, and/or or a speed of the hybrid vehicle 1. For example, when there is low load on the hybrid vehicle 1, or the hybrid vehicle 1 is at a port near a dock, or a speed of the hybrid vehicle 1 (e.g., determined by the vehicle speed sensor 109) is below a low threshold (e.g., less than 40 mph), the controller 10 may be configured to operate the hybrid vehicle 1 using solely energy storage device 20”) and monitoring a temperature for the exhaust aftertreatment system as a function of the detected low-load phase (see paragraph [0079], “the controller 170 determines an exhaust gas cooling rate of the SCR catalyst based on the determined exhaust gas temperature, the exhaust gas flow rate, and a SCR catalyst 150. The exhaust gas cooling rate indicates the rate at which the exhaust gas and thereby, the SCR catalyst 150 is cooling, for example, due to a low load on the engine 10, or the hybrid vehicle 1 being powered solely by the energy storage device 20”).
Moreover, Volmerding discloses that further operation of the internal combustion engine (10) is performed (see paragraph [0060], during low load the controller can operate the vehicle solely using the energy-storage device, and during those same conditions controller (170) can start engine (10) based on SCR catalyst temperature-change rate) as a function of a critical temperature for the exhaust aftertreatment system (see paragraph [0055], predicts whether SCR catalyst temperature will reach the low temperature threshold, and see paragraph [0082], expressly gives an example threshold of 200°C and increases engine load when catalyst temperature approaches), and a modeled cooling of the exhaust gas treatment system (see paragraphs [0079] - [0081], controller determines exhaust-gas cooling rate, determines ambient cooling rate, then determines SCR catalyst temperature-change rate from those cooling rates, and paragraph [0055], uses that modeled rate to predict that the catalyst will reach the low threshold within a specified future time).
Regarding Claim 2, Volmerding discloses that a cooling behavior of the exhaust aftertreatment system is modeled using an exhaust temperature (see paragraphs [0078] - [0079], the controller estimates exhaust-gas temperature and flow from engine operating parameters, then calculates the catalyst’s exhaust gas cooling rate from these values).
Regarding Claim 8, Volmerding discloses the temperature of the exhaust aftertreatment system is determined as a function of ambient temperature and vehicle speed (see Claim 17).
Regarding Claim 11, Volmerding discloses a method for operating a motor vehicle (1) having a hybrid drive (see paragraph [0018]), wherein the motor vehicle (1) includes a first drive having an electric motor associated with an electrical energy store (see paragraph [0035] energy storage device (20) can be batteries and bay be structures to provide the stored electrical energy to an electromagnetic device that provides mechanical output to a transmission (30)), and a second drive as an internal combustion engine (10) having an exhaust aftertreatment system (100) (see paragraph [0037], aftertreatment system (100) includes a housing (101) defining an internal volume within which a SCR catalyst (150) is disposed).
Furthermore, Volmerding disclose that the method includes detecting a low-load phase for the drive of the motor vehicle (1) (see paragraph [0060], “the controller 170 may also be configured to adjust a load distribution between the engine 10 and the energy storage device 20 based on the load demand from the hybrid vehicle, a location of the hybrid vehicle 1 on the route, and/or or a speed of the hybrid vehicle 1. For example, when there is low load on the hybrid vehicle 1, or the hybrid vehicle 1 is at a port near a dock, or a speed of the hybrid vehicle 1 (e.g., determined by the vehicle speed sensor 109) is below a low threshold (e.g., less than 40 mph), the controller 10 may be configured to operate the hybrid vehicle 1 using solely energy storage device 20”) and monitoring a temperature for the exhaust aftertreatment system as a function of the detected low-load phase (see paragraph [0079], “the controller 170 determines an exhaust gas cooling rate of the SCR catalyst based on the determined exhaust gas temperature, the exhaust gas flow rate, and a SCR catalyst 150. The exhaust gas cooling rate indicates the rate at which the exhaust gas and thereby, the SCR catalyst 150 is cooling, for example, due to a low load on the engine 10, or the hybrid vehicle 1 being powered solely by the energy storage device 20”).
Moreover, Volmerding discloses that further operation of the internal combustion engine (10) is performed (see paragraph [0060], during low load the controller can operate the vehicle solely using the energy-storage device, and during those same conditions controller (170) can start engine (10) based on SCR catalyst temperature-change rate) as a function of a critical temperature for the exhaust aftertreatment system (see paragraph [0055], predicts whether SCR catalyst temperature will reach the low temperature threshold, and see paragraph [0082], expressly gives an example threshold of 200°C and increases engine load when catalyst temperature approaches), and a modeled cooling of the exhaust gas treatment system (see paragraphs [0079] - [0081], controller determines exhaust-gas cooling rate, determines ambient cooling rate, then determines SCR catalyst temperature-change rate from those cooling rates, and paragraph [0055], uses that modeled rate to predict that the catalyst will reach the low threshold within a specified future time).
Volmerding discloses the inherently well-known features of the computer/controller/processor recited in the preamble of the claim (see paragraphs [0064 - [0065]).
Regarding Claim 12, Volmerding discloses that a control unit is configured to perform a method according to Claim 1 (see paragraphs [0064 - [0065]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volmerding in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2019/0376431, herein “Smith”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 10, Volmerding discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent concerning the low-load phase being determined based upon predictive data.
However, Smith teaches predicting the duration of an engine start-stop interval based upon predictive navigation-system data and using predicted start-stop information together with catalyst temperature relative to a catalyst light-off temperature in controlling engine operation. See Smith, Claims 15 and 16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to employ the navigation-based predictive-duration determination of Smith in the hybrid control system of Volmerding to determine the anticipated duration of Volmerding low-load/energy-storage-only operating condition, thereby permitting the controller to determine whether the modeled catalyst cooling during that anticipated interval would cause the catalyst to approach its low-temperature threshold and to appropriately control engine operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 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. Specifically, various references are cited that provide detail of relevant motor vehicle operating systems and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G MOUBRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM - 6:30PM.
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 M. 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.
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights