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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the claims of the present application are included in the claims of the issued patent.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 16 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 in view of Webb et al. (US 2022/0025805).
In Reference to Claim 2
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 2 except:
wherein receiving the warm up time includes determining, by the controller, a maximum time required for a catalyst element to be heated or is expected to be heated to the target temperature.
Webb discloses an exhaust gas aftertreatment electrical heater control system. (See Webb, Abstract). Webb discloses a warm up time includes determining, by the controller, a maximum time required for a catalyst element to be heated or is expected to be heated to the target temperature. (See Webb, Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a maximum time required, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas aftertreatment electrical heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing a maximum warmup time would allow for an accurate failure detection mechanism to reduce emissions and ensure intended operations. (See Webb, Paragraph [0041]).
In Reference to Claim 5
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 5 except:
wherein the target energy is determined based on an energy amount for the exhaust gas to reach the target temperature.
Webb discloses an exhaust gas aftertreatment electrical heater control system. (See Webb, Abstract). Webb discloses the target energy is determined based on an energy amount for the exhaust gas to reach the target temperature. (See Webb, Paragraphs [0033] & [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a maximum time required, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas aftertreatment electrical heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the energy control of Webb would have allowed for faster and more accurate heating during cold start or warmup conditions to reach operating temperatures and steady state conditions enhancing the emissions system. (See Webb, Paragraph [0036]).
In Reference to Claim 7
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 7 except:
wherein receiving the allowable heater power is further based on a correlation between the target emissions and a power requirement for the heater. (See Webb, Paragraphs [0003] & [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a maximum time required, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas aftertreatment electrical heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the energy control of Webb would have allowed for faster and more accurate heating during cold start or warmup conditions to reach operating temperatures and steady state conditions enhancing the emissions system. (See Webb, Paragraph [0036]).
In Reference to Claim 16
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 16 except:
further comprising: determining that the temperature of the engine is above a predefined threshold; and performing the method in response to the temperature of the engine being above the predefined threshold. (See Webb, Paragraph [0009])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a maximum time required, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas aftertreatment electrical heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the energy control of Webb would have allowed for faster and more accurate heating during cold start or warmup conditions to reach operating temperatures and steady state conditions enhancing the emissions system. (See Webb, Paragraph [0036]).
In Reference to Claim 18
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 18 except:
wherein receiving the allowable heater power is further based on a correlation between the target emissions and a power requirement for the heater. (See Webb, Paragraphs [0003] & [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a maximum time required, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas aftertreatment electrical heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the energy control of Webb would have allowed for faster and more accurate heating during cold start or warmup conditions to reach operating temperatures and steady state conditions enhancing the emissions system. (See Webb, Paragraph [0036]).
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 in view of Madurai Kumar et al. (US 2012/0173062).
In Reference to Claim 9
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 9 except:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising: receiving an available electrical power; determining that the available electrical power is at or above a threshold; and operating the heater to heat the exhaust gas to the target temperature in response to at least the available electrical power being at or above the threshold.
Madurai Kumar et al. (Kumar) discloses an exhaust heater control system. (See Kumar, Abstract). Kumar discloses receiving an available electrical power; determining that the available electrical power is at or above a threshold; and operating the heater to heat the exhaust gas to the target temperature in response to at least the available electrical power being at or above the threshold. (See Kumar, Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined and controlled the heater based on the state of charge of the battery as both references are directed towards exhaust gas heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the device of Kumar would have ensured adequate heater power for achieving the desired temperature. (See Kumar, Paragraphs [0029], [0030], & [0035]).
In Reference to Claim 10
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 in view of Kumar discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising determining, by the controller, a state of charge of a battery of the vehicle. (See Kumar, Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined and controlled the heater based on the state of charge of the battery as both references are directed towards exhaust gas heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the device of Kumar would have ensured adequate heater power for achieving the desired temperature. (See Kumar, Paragraphs [0029], [0030], & [0035]).
In Reference to Claim 19
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 19 except:
further comprising: determining, by the controller, a state of charge of a battery of the vehicle; determining, by the controller, that the state of charge is above a threshold; and operating, by the controller, the heater to heat the exhaust gas based on the state of charge being above the threshold.
Madurai Kumar et al. (Kumar) discloses an exhaust heater control system. (See Kumar, Abstract). Kumar discloses determining, by the controller, a state of charge of a battery of the vehicle; determining, by the controller, that the state of charge is above a threshold; and operating, by the controller, the heater to heat the exhaust gas based on the state of charge being above the threshold. (See Kumar, Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined and controlled the heater based on the state of charge of the battery as both references are directed towards exhaust gas heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the device of Kumar would have ensured adequate heater power for achieving the desired temperature. (See Kumar, Paragraphs [0029], [0030], & [0035]).
In Reference to Claim 20
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 in view of Kumar discloses:
further comprising receiving, by the controller, an electrical machine power consumption amount based on the state of charge of the battery and the allowable heater power. (See Kumar, Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined and controlled the heater based on the state of charge of the battery as both references are directed towards exhaust gas heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the device of Kumar would have ensured adequate heater power for achieving the desired temperature. (See Kumar, Paragraphs [0029], [0030], & [0035]).
Claims 13-14 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 in view of Romanato (US 2019/0360415).
In Reference to Claim 13
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 13 except:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising directing kinetic energy recovered during a vehicle braking or deceleration event to the aftertreatment system heater.
Romanato (Roman) discloses an exhaust gas heater control system. (See Roman, Abstract). Roman discloses using a tradeoff in a performance of emissions and driver demand power. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0060]-[0085]) and causing the controller to perform operations comprising directing kinetic energy recovered during a vehicle braking or deceleration event to the aftertreatment system heater. (See Roman, Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tradeoff function of Roman, as both references are directed towards exhaust heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the control of Roman would have optimized heat input from the engine and electrical heater reducing the fuel penalty to reach the desired emissions reduction level. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
In Reference to Claim 14
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 14 except:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising operating the aftertreatment system heater at or below a heater power limit when the vehicle is braking or decelerating.
Roman discloses an exhaust gas heater control system. (See Roman, Abstract). Roman discloses using a tradeoff in a performance of emissions and driver demand power (See Roman, Paragraphs [0060]-[0085]) and causing the controller to perform operations comprising operating the aftertreatment system heater at or below a heater power limit when the vehicle is braking or decelerating. (See Roman, Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tradeoff function of Roman, as both references are directed towards exhaust heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the control of Roman would have optimized heat input from the engine and electrical heater reducing the fuel penalty to reach the desired emissions reduction level. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
In Reference to Claim 17
Claims 5 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,757 discloses all of the limitation of claim 17 except:
further comprising: generating, by the controller, a heater power array including a zero heater power level, a maximum heater power level, and one or more heater power levels between the zero heater power level and the maximum heater power level; receiving, by the controller, a fuel consumption amount corresponding to each heater power level; receiving, by the controller, a priority between an exhaust power and the fuel consumption of the engine based on the fuel consumption corresponding to each heater power level; receiving, by the controller, the allowable heater power based on the priority between the exhaust power and the fuel consumption; and operating, by the controller, the heater with the heater power command not exceeding the allowable heater power to maintain the temperature of the exhaust gas.
Roman discloses an exhaust gas heater control system. (See Roman, Abstract). Roman discloses using a tradeoff in a performance of emissions and driver demand power and generating, by the controller, a heater power array including a zero heater power level, a maximum heater power level, and one or more heater power levels between the zero heater power level and the maximum heater power level; receiving, by the controller, a fuel consumption amount corresponding to each heater power level; receiving, by the controller, a priority between an exhaust power and the fuel consumption of the engine based on the fuel consumption corresponding to each heater power level; receiving, by the controller, the allowable heater power based on the priority between the exhaust power and the fuel consumption; and operating, by the controller, the heater with the heater power command not exceeding the allowable heater power to maintain the temperature of the exhaust gas. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0060]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tradeoff function of Roman, as both references are directed towards exhaust heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the control of Roman would have optimized heat input from the engine and electrical heater reducing the fuel penalty to reach the desired emissions reduction level. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
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)(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) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Swart et al. (US 2022/0025801).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Swart, Figures 1-2)
Swart et al. (Swart) discloses:
A method for increasing a temperature of an exhaust gas to a target temperature, the method comprising:
receiving, by a controller, a warm up time for the temperature of the exhaust gas to reach the target temperature (See Swart, Paragraph [0040] w/respect to extended time periods);
receiving, by the controller, a target emissions based at least on a target energy and an emissions value produced over an elapsed time interval relative to the warm up time (See Swart, Paragraphs [0007] & [0027] w/respect to emissions standards);
receiving, by the controller, an allowable heater power based at least on the target emissions (See Swart, Paragraphs [0033]-[0034]); and
operating, by the controller, a heater downstream from an engine of a vehicle with a heater power command at or below the allowable heater power to heat the exhaust gas to the target temperature. (See Swart, Paragraphs [0033]-[0034] & [0040]).
The Examiner notes that Swart determines a maximum heating time to reach target emissions (i.e.-regulatory emissions) and controls the heater power and engine heating output in accordance with the warmup time.
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Swart, Figures 1-2)
Swart discloses:
wherein receiving the warm up time includes determining, by the controller, a maximum time required for a catalyst element to be heated or is expected to be heated to the target temperature. (See Swart, Paragraph [0040] w/respect to extended time periods).
In Reference to Claim 3
(See Swart, Figures 1-2)
Swart discloses:
wherein receiving the warm up time includes determining, by the controller, the warm up time based on at least one of a temperature of the engine, an ambient temperature, or the temperature of the exhaust gas, an engine load. (See Swart, Paragraph [0040] w/respect to extended time periods).
The Examiner notes that the warmup time is at least dependent on the exhaust gas temperature.
In Reference to Claim 5
(See Swart, Figures 1-2)
Swart discloses:
wherein the target energy is determined based on an energy amount for the exhaust gas to reach the target temperature. (See Swart, Paragraph [0038]).
In Reference to Claim 6
(See Swart, Figures 1-2)
Swart discloses:
further comprising: receiving, by the controller, a tradeoff in a performance of the engine corresponding to at least the target emissions, wherein the allowable heater power is based at least partly on the tradeoff. (See Swart, Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
In Reference to Claim 7
(See Swart, Figures 1-2)
Swart discloses:
wherein receiving the allowable heater power is further based on a correlation between the target emissions and a power requirement for the heater. (See Swart, Paragraph [0038]).
In Reference to Claim 8
(See Swart, Figures 1-2)
Swart discloses:
A system for increasing a temperature of an exhaust gas to a target temperature, the system comprising:
an aftertreatment system (100) coupled to an engine of a vehicle (See Swart, Paragraph [0021]);
an aftertreatment system heater (112) in communication with the aftertreatment system (100) (See Swart, Paragraph [0023]); and
a controller in communication with the engine and the aftertreatment system heater, the controller comprising at least one processor coupled to a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (See Swart, Paragraph [0033]), cause the controller to perform operations comprising:
receiving a warm up time for the temperature of the exhaust gas to reach the target temperature (See Swart, Paragraph [0040] w/respect to extended time periods),
receiving a target emissions based at least on a target energy and an emissions value produced over an elapsed time interval relative to the warm up time (See Swart, Paragraphs [0007] & [0027] w/respect to emissions standards),
receiving an allowable heater power based at least on the target emissions (See Swart, Paragraphs [0033]-[0034]), and
operating a heater downstream from the engine with a heater power command at or below the allowable heater power to heat the exhaust gas to the target temperature. (See Swart, Paragraphs [0033]-[0034] & [0040]).
The Examiner notes that Swart determines a maximum heating time to reach target emissions (i.e.-regulatory emissions) and controls the heater power and engine heating output in accordance with the warmup time.
In Reference to Claim 15
(See Swart, Figures 1-2)
Swart discloses:
A method for increasing a temperature of an exhaust gas to a target temperature in a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by a controller, a warm up time for the temperature of the exhaust gas to reach the target temperature (See Swart, Paragraph [0040] w/respect to extended time periods);
receiving, by the controller, a target emissions based at least on a target energy and an emissions value produced over an elapsed time interval relative to the warm up time (See Swart, Paragraphs [0007] & [0027] w/respect to emissions standards);
receiving, by the controller, a tradeoff in a fuel consumption of an engine of the vehicle corresponding to at least the target emissions (See Swart, Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]);
receiving, by the controller, an allowable heater power based at least on the tradeoff (See Swart, Paragraphs [0033]-[0034]); and
operating, by the controller, a heater downstream from the engine with a heater power command at or below the allowable heater power to heat the exhaust gas to the target temperature. (See Swart, Paragraphs [0033]-[0034] & [0040]).
The Examiner notes that Swart determines a maximum heating time to reach target emissions (i.e.-regulatory emissions) and controls the heater power and engine heating output in accordance with the warmup time.
In Reference to Claim 18
(See Swart, Figures 1-2)
Swart discloses:
wherein receiving the allowable heater power is further based on a correlation between the target emissions and a power requirement for the heater. (See Swart, Paragraphs [0003] & [0027]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swart et al. (US 2022/0025801) in view of Madurai Kumar et al. (US 2012/0173062).
In Reference to Claim 9
Swart discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising: receiving an available electrical power; determining that the available electrical power is at or above a threshold; and operating the heater to heat the exhaust gas to the target temperature in response to at least the available electrical power being at or above the threshold.
Madurai Kumar et al. (Kumar) discloses an exhaust heater control system. (See Kumar, Abstract). Kumar discloses a hybrid system which includes receiving an available electrical power; determining that the available electrical power is at or above a threshold; and operating the heater to heat the exhaust gas to the target temperature in response to at least the available electrical power being at or above the threshold. (See Kumar, Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a hybrid engine system and determined and controlled the heater based on the state of charge of the battery as both references are directed towards exhaust gas heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the device of Kumar would have decreased fuel usage and overall emissions while ensuring adequate heater power for achieving the desired temperature. (See Kumar, Paragraphs [0029], [0030], & [0035]).
In Reference to Claim 10
The Swart-Kumar combination discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising determining, by the controller, a state of charge of a battery of the vehicle. (See Kumar, Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a hybrid engine system and determined and controlled the heater based on the state of charge of the battery as both references are directed towards exhaust gas heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the device of Kumar would have decreased fuel usage and overall emissions while ensuring adequate heater power for achieving the desired temperature. (See Kumar, Paragraphs [0029], [0030], & [0035]).
In Reference to Claim 19
Swart discloses the claimed invention except:
determining, by the controller, a state of charge of a battery of the vehicle; determining, by the controller, that the state of charge is above a threshold; and operating, by the controller, the heater to heat the exhaust gas based on the state of charge being above the threshold.
Madurai Kumar et al. (Kumar) discloses an exhaust heater control system. (See Kumar, Abstract). Kumar discloses a hybrid system which includes receiving an available electrical power; determining, by the controller, a state of charge of a battery of the vehicle; determining, by the controller, that the state of charge is above a threshold; and operating, by the controller, the heater to heat the exhaust gas based on the state of charge being above the threshold. (See Kumar, Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a hybrid engine system and determined and controlled the heater based on the state of charge of the battery as both references are directed towards exhaust gas heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the device of Kumar would have decreased fuel usage and overall emissions while ensuring adequate heater power for achieving the desired temperature. (See Kumar, Paragraphs [0029], [0030], & [0035]).
In Reference to Claim 20
The Swart-Kumar combination discloses:
receiving, by the controller, an electrical machine power consumption amount based on the state of charge of the battery and the allowable heater power. (See Kumar, Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a hybrid engine system and determined and controlled the heater based on the state of charge of the battery as both references are directed towards exhaust gas heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the device of Kumar would have decreased fuel usage and overall emissions while ensuring adequate heater power for achieving the desired temperature. (See Kumar, Paragraphs [0029], [0030], & [0035]).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swart et al. (US 2022/0025801) in view of Romanato (US 2019/0360415).
In Reference to Claim 13
Swart discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising directing kinetic energy recovered during a vehicle braking or deceleration event to the aftertreatment system heater.
Romanato (Roman) discloses an exhaust gas heater control system. (See Roman, Abstract). Roman discloses determining a tradeoff in a performance of an engine corresponding to at least emissions and/or driver demand power. Specifically Roman discloses calculating, using weight functions, a torque demand required by the engine to power electric heaters and a priority of emissions treating devices reaching their optimal emissions reduction level and controlling power during braking and deceleration. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0059]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tradeoff function of Roman in the control device of Swart, as both references are directed towards exhaust heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the control of Roman would have optimized heat input from the engine and electrical heater reducing the fuel penalty to reach the desired emissions reduction level. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
In Reference to Claim 14
Swart discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising operating the aftertreatment system heater at or below a heater power limit when the vehicle is braking or decelerating.
Roman discloses an exhaust gas heater control system. (See Roman, Abstract). Roman discloses determining a tradeoff in a performance of an engine corresponding to at least emissions and/or driver demand power. Specifically Roman discloses calculating, using weight functions, a torque demand required by the engine to power electric heaters and a priority of emissions treating devices reaching their optimal emissions reduction level and controlling power during braking and decleration. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0059]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tradeoff function of Roman in the control device of Swart, as both references are directed towards exhaust heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the control of Roman would have optimized heat input from the engine and electrical heater reducing the fuel penalty to reach the desired emissions reduction level. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
In Reference to Claim 17
Swart discloses the claimed invention except:
further comprising: generating, by the controller, a heater power array including a zero heater power level, a maximum heater power level, and one or more heater power levels between the zero heater power level and the maximum heater power level; receiving, by the controller, a fuel consumption amount corresponding to each heater power level; receiving, by the controller, a priority between an exhaust power and the fuel consumption of the engine based on the fuel consumption corresponding to each heater power level; receiving, by the controller, the allowable heater power based on the priority between the exhaust power and the fuel consumption; and operating, by the controller, the heater with the heater power command not exceeding the allowable heater power to maintain the temperature of the exhaust gas.
Roman discloses an exhaust gas heater control system. (See Roman, Abstract). Roman discloses using a tradeoff in a performance of emissions and driver demand power and generating, by the controller, a heater power array including a zero heater power level, a maximum heater power level, and one or more heater power levels between the zero heater power level and the maximum heater power level; receiving, by the controller, a fuel consumption amount corresponding to each heater power level; receiving, by the controller, a priority between an exhaust power and the fuel consumption of the engine based on the fuel consumption corresponding to each heater power level; receiving, by the controller, the allowable heater power based on the priority between the exhaust power and the fuel consumption; and operating, by the controller, the heater with the heater power command not exceeding the allowable heater power to maintain the temperature of the exhaust gas. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0060]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tradeoff function of Roman in the control device of Swart, as both references are directed towards exhaust heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the control of Roman would have optimized heat input from the engine and electrical heater reducing the fuel penalty to reach the desired emissions reduction level. (See Roman, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swart et al. (US 2022/0025801) in view of Webb (US 2022/0025805).
In Reference to Claim 16
Swart discloses the claimed invention except:
further comprising: determining that the temperature of the engine is above a predefined threshold; and performing the method in response to the temperature of the engine being above the predefined threshold.
Webb discloses an exhaust gas aftertreatment electrical heater control system. (See Webb, Abstract). Webb discloses determining that the temperature of the engine is above a predefined threshold; and performing the method in response to the temperature of the engine being above the predefined threshold. (See Webb, Paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a maximum time required, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas aftertreatment electrical heater control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the energy control of Webb would have allowed for faster and more accurate heating during cold start or warmup conditions to reach operating temperatures and steady state conditions enhancing the emissions system. (See Webb, Paragraph [0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the target emissions is based on determining an amount of emissions remaining before reaching the target temperature.” in claim 4 and “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the controller to perform operations comprising: receiving an electrical machine power consumption amount based on the available electrical power and the allowable heater power; and receiving an engine power amount based at least on the electrical machine power consumption amount.” in claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hadano, Miao, Brahma, and Bare show exhaust heater devices within the general state of the art of invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746