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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-29 are objected to because in claim 12, line 15, the word “ae” has typographical error. Please recheck all claims for any similar errors.
Claims 27-29 are objected to because the claims may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 17-20 appear to recite a computer program only of the control unit. MPEP 2106 clearly states that a computer program per se is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please use the following language to overcome the pending rejection: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processor, perform the steps comprising”
Note the bold-underlined texts of the following MPEP 2106.03:
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
35 USC 112(b) rejections
Claims 25-26 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.
Claims 25-26 are rejected because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because of the following reasons.
The term “in particular” on line 5 of claim 25 and line 5 of claim 26 is vague, indefinite, should be avoided in claim language.
For examination purposes the offending limitations above will be interpreted to be: the limitations following “in particular” is considered not parts of the claims.
35 USC 102 rejections
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) 12-13, 17-19, 23-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US 9828929 (Troberg).
Regarding independent claim 12, Troberg discloses a method for controlling an internal combustion engine that has a crankshaft, and an intake valve and a charge air compressor (turbocharger) for pre-compressing charge air, the method comprising: operating the internal combustion engine in a first operating mode if a first operating criterion is met, wherein in the first operating mode ("second operation mode", "third operation mode") at a first crankshaft angle at a bottom dead center position of the crankshaft (see e.g. column 4, lines 49 -57. It is clear that the explicitly mentioned crankshaft angle of 0 degrees corresponds to the bottom dead center position, i.e. a crankshaft angle of 180 degrees in the definition of the claim, since the angle is related to the bottom dead center position(BDC),, proceeding from a top dead center position of the crankshaft and measured in a working direction of rotation of the crankshaft, a closure of the intake valve is fully completed at a first crankshaft angle at a bottom dead center position of the crankshaft in a first operating mode; switching from the first operating mode into a second operating mode if a second operating criterion is met (''fourth operation mode" and ''fifth operation mode" in the fourth exemplary embodiment, also referred to in table 4 as "Inter. Miller") , wherein in the second operating mode, proceeding from the top dead center position of the crankshaft and measured in the working direction of rotation of the crankshaft, the closure of the intake valve is fully completed at a second crankshaft angle, which is smaller than the first crankshaft angle, before the bottom dead center position; and switching from the second operating mode into a third operating mode ("first operation mode", "Full Miller") if a third operating criterion is met, wherein in the third operating mode, proceeding from the top dead center position of the crankshaft and measured in the working direction of rotation of the crankshaft, the closure of the intake valve is fully completed, at a third crankshaft angle, which is smaller than the second crankshaft angle (see column 6, lines 17 -29), before the bottom dead center position (note: wherein the internal combustion engine: is operated in the first operating mode if a first operating criterion is met (see table 4: no Miller cycle is used if the engine load is in the range of0-15% or 35-50%), is switched from the first operating mode to the second operating mode if a second operating criterion is met (see table 4: engine load 15-35%, 50-85%), is switched from the second operating mode to the third operating mode if a third operating criterion is met (see table 4: engine load 85-100%).
Regarding claims 13, Troberg at least discloses the first operating criterion is met upon meeting at least one of a group of sub-criteria consisting of: a present load of the internal combustion engine has a value that lies in a first specified load value range comprising values from zero up to and including a first specified threshold load value (all the operating modes are selected based on the engine loads as clearly described on columns 4-6; for example Table 2 shows various modes based on the engine load percentages).
Regarding claims 17, 24, Troberg at least discloses wherein the second operating criterion is met upon meeting at least one of a group of second sub-criteria consisting of: the present load of the internal combustion engine has a value that lies in a second specified load value range comprising values from but excluding a first specified threshold load value up to and including a second specified threshold load value (all the operating modes are selected based on the engine loads as clearly described on columns 4-6; for example Table 2 shows various modes based on the engine load percentages, note that the loads keep changing during the operation so the values are changing to a second, third, fourth … values/conditions).
Regarding claims 18, Troberg at least discloses wherein the second operating criterion is met upon meeting at least one of a further group of second sub-criteria consisting of: the present load value of the internal combustion engine transitions from the first specified load value range to the second specified load value range (all the operating modes are selected based on the engine loads as clearly described on columns 4-6; for example Table 2 shows various modes based on the engine load percentages, note that the loads keep changing during the operation so the values are changing to a second, third, fourth … values/conditions).
Regarding claims 19, 23, Troberg at least discloses wherein the third operating criterion is met upon meeting at least one of a group of third sub-criteria consisting of: the present load of the internal combustion engine has a value that lies in a third specified load value range comprising values higher than but excluding the second specified threshold load value range (all the operating modes are selected based on the engine loads as clearly described on columns 4-6; for example Table 2 shows various modes based on the engine load percentages, note that the loads keep changing during the operation so the values are changing to a second, third, fourth … values/conditions).
Regarding claims 25-26, As stated in column 6, lines 25-29 of Troberg, the closing angle in the third operating mode lies at 20-40° CA before the bottom dead center. The closing angle in the second operating mode lies approximately 5-15° CA later and thus in the range between 35° CA and 5° CA before the bottom dead center.
Regarding claims 27-29, the system of Troberg clearly has an internal combustion engine of a vehicle and a control unit to control the whole system.
35 USC 103 rejections
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.
Claims 14-16, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 9828929 (Troberg) in view of DE 10 2019 134612 (Farsch). Troberg teaches all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but still does not teach that exhaust gas temperature at various location can be used to determine the operating modes. Farsch teaches that temperature sensors at various locations can be used to control the engine operation (paragraphs 27, 42-47). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide many temperature sensors at various locations to provide sensed temperatures to the control unit of Troberg as taught by Frasch for the purpose of determining the operation modes based on the sensed temperatures.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Clark, Dorfmeister, Cleary, and Fiveland disclose control units for internal combustion engine for using various operating modes based on engine loads, gas temperatures, and other sensed parameters.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Examiner Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4861. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday--Thursday from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HOANG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
HOANG NGUYEN
PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 3746
Hoang Minh Nguyen
6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights