DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 9/4/2025.
Claims 11-30 are currently pending.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16 and 18 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " as part of the correlation diagnosis " in 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " the time profile" in 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13-15 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Holger et al. (DE 102021003415).
As to claim 11 Holger discloses a method for operating a drive device for a motor vehicle (page 2 paragraph 3),
wherein the drive device has an exhaust-gas-generating drive unit (engine #3), and
by an exhaust gas probe an exhaust gas value describing a composition of the exhaust gas is determined (page 4 paragraph 10), and for
a plurality of systems of the drive device a state value describing the state of the respective system is, in each case as part of a system diagnosis, wherein, for each of the plurality of systems determined (by the OBD Device, page 2 paragraph 2),
it is defined in at least one system defect data set whether a system defect of the respective system affects the exhaust gas value, determined (by the OBD Device, page 2 paragraph 2)
wherein if the exhaust gas value departs from an exhaust gas range, the system defect data sets of the systems are first put on a checklist of system defect data sets to be checked, and then, those system defect data sets for which it is defined that the exhaust gas value is not affected are removed from the checklist (page 5 paragraph 1 and figure 2), wherein for the system defect data sets remaining on the checklist, a device diagnosis is carried out to detect the system defect of the respective system based on the state value (page 2 paragraph 9).
As to claim 13 Holger discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the exhaust gas value is one of a plurality of exhaust gas values which are determined for different exhaust gas components and/or for different operating states of the drive device and/or for different configurations of the drive unit. (page 5 paragraph 1)
“Capture S10 several measured and operating values of the drive train 2,”
As to claim 14 Holger discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein an exhaust gas measured value is measured by the exhaust gas probe and the exhaust gas value is determined by normalizing by a model value determined using an exhaust gas model. (page 5 paragraph 3)
As to claim 15 Holger discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein at least one of the following diagnostic types is carried out for the system defect data sets remaining on the checklist as part of the device diagnosis: correlation diagnosis, link diagnosis, statistical diagnosis and intrusive diagnosis. (statistical diagnosis according to page 3)
As to claim 21 Holger discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the exhaust gas value is one of a plurality of exhaust gas values which are determined for different exhaust gas components and/or for different operating states of the drive device and/or for different configurations of the drive unit (page 5 paragraph 1).
As to claim 22 Holger discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein an exhaust gas measured value is measured by the exhaust gas probe and the exhaust gas value is determined from the exhaust gas measured value by normalizing by a model value determined using an exhaust gas model. (page 5 paragraph 3)
As to claim 23 Holger discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein an exhaust gas measured value is measured by the exhaust gas probe and the exhaust gas value is determined from the exhaust gas measured value by normalizing a model value determined using an exhaust gas model. (page 5 paragraph 3)
As to claim 24 Holger discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein at least one of the following diagnostic types is carried out for the system defect data sets remaining on the checklist as part of the device diagnosis: correlation diagnosis, link diagnosis, statistical diagnosis and intrusive diagnosis. (statistical diagnosis according to page 3)
As to claim 25 Holger discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein at least one of the following diagnostic types is carried out for the system defect data sets remaining on the checklist as part of the device diagnosis: correlation diagnosis, link diagnosis, statistical diagnosis and intrusive diagnosis. (statistical diagnosis according to page 3)
As to claim 26 Holger discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein at least one of the following diagnostic types is carried out for the system defect data sets remaining on the checklist as part of the device diagnosis: correlation diagnosis, link diagnosis, statistical diagnosis and intrusive diagnosis. (statistical diagnosis according to page 3)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 16-20 and 27-30 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 est.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights