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 .
Responsive to correspondence
This office action is in response to correspondence filed on 04/09/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 04/09/2025 was filed before the first action on the merits. This submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Accordingly, these have been fully considered by the Office.
Abstract
The abstract filed 04/09/2025 appears to be acceptable.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S Publication number 2018/0283308 A1 to HAYASHITA et al. (HAYASHITA).
Re: Claim 12:
HAYASHITA discloses:
A method for operating an internal combustion engine (See Figs.1-21: ¶0064-¶0082: claims 1-13) having an exhaust gas system (See Fig.1: 19-23) with a catalytic converter device (See Fig.1: ¶0060: catalytic converter device 20, having some oxygen storage) to at least partially store oxygen and
an exhaust gas sensor (See Figs.1: ¶0054-¶0067: exhaust sensor 41, 46) downstream from the catalytic converter device (See Fig.1: catalytic converter device 20) to generate an exhaust gas signal (¶0067-¶0068: from exhaust gas sensor 41,46) representing an exhaust gas value corresponding to a sum of nitrogen oxide content and ammonia content in the exhaust gas (See Figs. 1-7: ¶0082), the method comprising:
operating the internal combustion engine using a rich combustion gas mixture after a throttle cut-off phase of the internal combustion engine (See Figs.1-21: ¶0068) has taken place longer than a predetermined time threshold value (Figs. 3, 4, 9: ¶00 64; Influence of time on the probe current signals disclosed);
receiving an exhaust gas signal (¶0067-¶0068: from exhaust gas sensor 41,46) from the exhaust gas sensor;
determining that the exhaust gas signal meets a predetermined target criterion (Figs. 3, 4, 9: ¶0064: Influence of time on the probe current signals disclosed); and
operating the internal combustion engine using an essentially stoichiometric combustion gas mixture if the exhaust gas signal meets the predetermined target criterion (Figs.3, 4, 9: ¶0064) .
Re: Claim 13:
HAYASHITA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein determining whether the exhaust gas signal meets the predetermined target criterion comprises determining whether the received exhaust gas signal indicates an exhaust gas value exceeds a predetermined exhaust gas threshold value (¶0019, ¶0089-¶0096, and claim 2: wherein the abnormality judgment part is configured to judge that an output of the ammonia detection device is falling if, after the start of the rich control, the output value of the ammonia detection device does not rise to the reference value until a predetermined time elapses from when the air-fuel ratio detected by the air-fuel ratio detection device falls to the rich judged air-fuel ratio).
Re: Claim 14:
HAYASHITA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein determining the exhaust gas signal meets the predetermined target criterion furthermore comprises determining the exhaust gas signal has reached a local maximum (Figs.3, 4, 9: ¶0019, ¶0064, ¶0089-¶0096).
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) 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Publication number 2018/0283308 A1 to HAYASHITA et al. (HAYASHITA) as applied to claim 1 above, combined with the following reasons.
Re: Claim 17:
HAYASHITA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 12, HAYASHITA discloses all the limitations of claim 12, and stoichiometric combustion gas mixture has a lambda value , however HAYASHITA is silent regarding specific stoichiometric combustion gas mixture having a lambda value between 0.998 and 1.002.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different stoichiometric combustion gas mixture depending on the system requirement, since achieving lambda value between 0.998 and 1.002 is merely a design option based on operability of the system, and the specific range claimed just provides applicant with an optimum characteristic, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 18:
HAYASHITA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 12, HAYASHITA discloses all the limitations of claim 12, and the rich combustion gas mixture has a lambda value, HAYASHITA is silent regarding specific value claimed as wherein the rich combustion gas mixture has a lambda value of approximately 0.8.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different the rich combustion gas mixture lambda value depending on the system requirement, since achieving rich combustion gas mixture has a lambda value of approximately 0.8 is merely a design option based on operability of the system, and the specific range claimed just provides applicant with an optimum characteristic, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A)
Re: Claim 19:
HAYASHITA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 12, HAYASHITA discloses all the limitations of claim 12, and the predetermined time threshold value, however HAYASHITA is silent regarding predetermined specific time threshold value is between 1 and 5 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to elect different predetermined time threshold value depending on the system requirement, since predetermined time threshold value between 1 and 5 seconds is merely a design option based on operability of the system, and the specific range claimed just provides applicant with an optimum characteristic, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A)
Regarding claims 20-21: HAYASHITA discloses all the limitations of claims 20-21 including computer-readable media in claim 20 and a controller as claimed in claim 21: These claims , are considered, mutatis mutandis, to be known in the art, since HAYASHITA also discloses the corresponding control device (ECU 31), which is known to contain the corresponding computer programs on the corresponding computer-readable media.
Allowable Subject Matter and Prior Art
Claim 15 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 15 contains an allowable subject matter because the prior art of record failed to disclose or teach wherein determining the exhaust gas signal meets the predetermined target criterion furthermore comprises: receiving a further exhaust gas signal after the local maximum has been reached; and determining that a gradient of the further exhaust gas signal has reached a predetermined gradient threshold value.
Claim 16 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on allowable claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights