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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claims 11 – 20 are entitled to a priority date of February 9, 2023.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests applicant amend the title to incorporate raw emissions and final emissions calculated using different computing models.
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 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.
Claims 11 and 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buerger et al. (hereafter “Buerger” – US 2019/0360414).
With regards to Claim 11:
Buerger discloses a method for operating an internal combustion engine of a motor vehicle (abstract: “a vehicle having an internal combustion engine”), in which the internal combustion engine has an exhaust gas tract, through which exhaust gas from the internal combustion engine can flow, and an exhaust gas aftertreatment device which is arranged in the exhaust gas tract and by way of which the exhaust gas under goes aftertreatment (Paragraph 6: “exhaust gases from the internal combustion engine are typically conducted out of the vehicle via an exhaust system of the vehicle. In this context, the exhaust system usually comprises a catalytic converter (e.g. a three-way catalytic converter) which is configured to reduce the quantity of emissions in the exhaust gases from the internal combustion engine”), the method comprising:
calculating at least one raw emissions value by way of an electronic computing device using a first computing model (Paragraph 23: “The control unit can be configured to determine a raw emission value of the internal combustion engine for the planning time period on the basis of an engine model of the internal combustion engine”) which is stored in a data storage medium of the electronic computing device (Paragraph 23: “The engine model can be determined within the scope of tests on the vehicle or the vehicle type in advance and stored in a memory unit of the vehicle”), which raw emissions value characterizes raw emissions of the internal combustion engine (Paragraph 23);
calculating at least one final emissions value by way of the electronic computing device in a manner dependent on the raw emissions value and using a second computing model (Paragraph 25: “the control unit can be configured to determine the planning emission value from the raw emission value on the basis of a catalytic converter model for a catalytic converter of the vehicle”) which is stored in the data storage medium (Paragraph 25: “The catalytic converter model can be determined within the scope of tests on the vehicle or for the vehicle type in advance and stored in a memory unit of the vehicle”), which final emissions value characterizes emissions which result from the raw emissions and the aftertreatment of the exhaust gas, leave the exhaust gas tract, and are output to a surrounding area of the motor vehicle (Paragraph 56); and
operating the internal combustion engine in a manner dependent on the final emissions value (step 202 in Figure 2, “controlling multiplicity of emission-relevant functions”, which as per Paragraph 8 include “overrun cutoff of the internal combustion engine, … switching the internal combustion engine to lean operation; overrun burbling of the internal combustion engine; tank ventilation and/or a torque intervention in the internal combustion engine”).
With regards to Claims 15 and 16:
Buerger discloses the raw emissions value is calculated using the first computing model in a manner dependent on a load and a speed of the internal combustion engine, and a combustion air ratio of the internal combustion engine (Paragraph 55: “possible to use an engine model of the internal combustion engine 102 which is configured to calculate the raw emissions of the internal combustion engine 102 as a function of one or more operating parameters of the internal combustion engine 102. Exemplary operating parameters are: a rotational speed of the internal combustion engine 102, a load of the internal combustion engine 102, a temperature of the internal combustion engine 102, a composition of the fuel/air mixture etc”).
With regards to Claim 17:
Buerger discloses the second computing model is used to calculate an ability of the exhaust gas aftertreatment device to convert first components included in the exhaust gas into second components, different from the first components, through the aftertreatment of the exhaust gas, wherein the final emissions value is calculated in a manner dependent on the calculated ability (Paragraph 56: “a catalytic converter model can be used to determine the planning emission value on the basis of the raw emissions of the internal combustion engine 102. In this context, operating parameters of the catalytic converter 104 (such as e.g. the exhaust gas temperature, the catalytic converter temperature, the exhaust gas mass flow, the lambda value etc.) can be acquired by means of one or more vehicle sensors 106 and taken into account. The catalytic converter model can comprise e.g. characteristic data which indicate which portion of the raw emissions can be converted by the catalytic converter 104. The converted portion depends here on the operating parameters of the catalytic converter 104”).
With regards to Claims 18 and 19:
Buerger discloses the final emissions value is calculated using the second computing model in a manner dependent on at least one temperature of the exhaust gas aftertreatment device, wherein the temperature is measured by way of a temperature sensor of the internal combustion engine (Paragraph 56: “a catalytic converter model can be used to determine the planning emission value on the basis of the raw emissions of the internal combustion engine 102. In this context, operating parameters of the catalytic converter 104 (such as e.g. the exhaust gas temperature, the catalytic converter temperature, the exhaust gas mass flow, the lambda value etc.) can be acquired by means of one or more vehicle sensors 106 and taken into account”).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerger et al. (hereafter “Buerger” – US 2019/0360414) in view of Willimowski et al. (hereafter “Willimowski” – US 2018/0154897).
With regards to Claim 12:
Buerger does not explicitly teach the internal combustion engine is operated in a manner dependent on the final emissions value in such a way that a maximum load that can be provided by the internal combustion engine for driving the motor vehicle is restricted to a limit value. However, Buerger does teach that one of the emission-relevant functions can include a “torque intervention in the internal combustion engine” (Paragraph 8). While one of ordinary skill may assume that a torque intervention requires the setting of a limit value, there is no explicit teaching of such. Willimowski (Figure 1) teaches a method for reduction of NOx in an engine, the method including determining raw emission values (Paragraph 38: “static and dynamic, untreated NOx emissions”) using one model (see Paragraph 22) and final emission values (Paragraph 42: “the current NOx emissions”) using another model (Paragraph 42). As a response to NOx emission being over a threshold and in an attempt to reduce NOx, Willimowski teaches “control unit 22 may implement a torque limitation” (Paragraph 56). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, given the teachings of both Buerger and Willimowski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buerger by making the torque intervention described by Buerger a restriction of the maximum load/torque of the engine based on the final emissions value in order to reduce emissions.
With regards to Claim 13:
The Buerger modification of Claim 12 teaches a value of the maximum load that can be provided by the internal combustion engine for driving the motor vehicle that is greater than the limit value is permitted during operation of the internal combustion engine that precedes the restriction of the load and/or during operation of the internal combustion engine following the restriction of the load (as per Burger, Paragraph 59, the emission-relevant functions, such as torque intervention, occur during “planning time periods” which coincide with planning emission values and the emission-relevant functions may only occur within that time period, with no torque intervention before or after the planning time period – Furthermore, Willimowski teaches the action to address the emissions, is only taken “in response to the threshold being exceeded or in response to the threshold being predicted to be exceeded”, see Paragraph 47, such that no action takes place when the emissions are within acceptable ranges).
With regards to Claim 14:
The Buerger modification of Claim 12 teaches the final emissions value is compared with a predefined threshold value by way of the electronic computing device, wherein the maximum load that can be provided by the internal combustion engine for driving the motor vehicle is restricted to the limit value when the comparison reveals that the final emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value (Buerger, Paragraphs 58 – 59: “determine whether the planning emission value determined for the planning time period exceeds the reference emission value or not. The multiplicity of emission-relevant functions can then be controlled in the planning time period in accordance with the abovementioned comparison, i.e. in particular can be partially activated or deactivated” and Willimowski, Paragraph 47: “an action is taken directly in response to the threshold being exceeded or in response to the threshold being predicted to be exceeded”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerger et al. (hereafter “Buerger” – US 2019/0360414) in view of Magnor (DE 102020100158).
With regards to Claim 20:
Buerger does not explicitly disclose the final emissions value is calculated using the second computing model in a manner dependent on an amount of oxygen stored in the exhaust gas aftertreatment device and/or in a manner dependent on a velocity with which the exhaust gas flows through the exhaust gas aftertreatment device. Magnor (Figure 1) teaches determination of the performance of a catalytic converter using two models. In a first model (1), the catalytic converter has no oxygen storage device (Paragraph 9). A second model (2) “represents the functioning of the catalyst with an oxygen storage unit” (Paragraph 16). This model receives as an input “the raw emissions of the internal combustion engine” from “a raw emissions model” (Paragraph 18) to ultimately yield better lambda control (Paragraph 5). Note this means that Magnor would be a 102 reference of Claim 11, fully anticipating the features of Claim 11. In addition to the raw emissions, “the second model 2 also receives information about the temperature T of the catalyst or the oxygen storage or the exhaust gas” (Paragraph 19). The addition of an oxygen storage input to the model yields improved diagnostics of the effectiveness of the converter and improved lambda control (Paragraphs 5, 23). Given the teachings of Magnor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Buerger by including an amount of oxygen stored in the catalytic converter as an input into the final emissions model of Buerger in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
Additional References
Please see attached PTO-892 form for additional references which are made of record but not relied upon for the current grounds of rejection.
Maloney (US 6233922) – 102 reference on at least claim 11 – engine model (120, Figure 4A) calculates a raw emissions value (Col. 4, Lines 26+) upstream of catalyst (18), catalytic converter model (180, Figure 4A) calculates a final emissions value (Col. 5, Lines 45+), and this final emissions value is used to ultimately adjust fuel injection levels via fuel controller (60, Figure 1).
Kumar (US 2018/0142601) – 102 reference on at least claim 11 – engine model (260, Figure 2B) calculating a raw “exhaust emissions”, which is used as an input into the TWC model (270), which outputs a final “tailpipe emissions”, which “may serve as bases for adjustments to engine system operation enacted by the controller in coordination with various actuators” (Paragraph 36).
Wagner (US 2021/0079861) – 102 reference on at least claim 11 – emissions raw value model (122, Figure 1) calculating raw emissions, which is used as an input into emission model (124) calculating a final emission value, said value being used by adaption device (120) “for the adaptation of at least one of the setpoint variables for the control of internal combustion engine 100” (Paragraph 35).
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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 on (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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Thursday, June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights