DETAILED ACTION
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested: Fueling Ratios After Fuel Cut Based on Oxygen Concentration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim requires a correction to be applied exceeding a range of fluctuation which is mentioned on pages 12 and 21 of the specification. The specification does not define what this range is or how to determine it, what causes the fluctuation? What is this expected range? Is this a fluctuation of sensor issue or due to the actual changes in the gas?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (U.S. Pat. No. 10,400,695).
Regarding claim 1, 5 and 6, Yamaguchi discloses an internal-combustion-engine control apparatus (fig. 1) configured to control an internal combustion engine (1), the internal combustion engine comprising an internal combustion engine body, an intake passage (2) and an exhaust passage (3) each coupled to the internal combustion engine body, a catalyst (6) provided in the exhaust passage, an oxygen sensor (14 is a pure oxygen concentration sensor with 15 is an oxygen concentration sensor that creates a ratio to fuel) configured to detect an oxygen concentration on a downstream side of the catalyst, and an exhaust gas recirculator configured to circulate a part of exhaust gas into the intake passage, the internal-combustion-engine control apparatus comprising:
an exhaust gas recirculation processor (10 with its connection to 22) configured to control the exhaust gas recirculator, based on an operating state of the internal combustion engine; and
a catalyst neutralization processor (10 with its connection to 13-16) configured to determine whether the oxygen concentration detected by the oxygen sensor is greater than or equal to a predetermined first threshold,
execute, when the oxygen concentration detected by the oxygen sensor is greater than or equal to the predetermined first threshold, catalyst neutralization processing in which fuel injection into the internal combustion engine is executed in a fuel-rich atmosphere comprising a richer air-fuel ratio than a stoichiometric air-fuel ratio to thereby consume at least a part of oxygen stored in the catalyst (abstract discloses using rich A/F ratio after fuel cut. Fuel cut being a time where intake air is not being combusted and so would have higher oxygen concentration),
determine whether the oxygen concentration detected by the oxygen sensor in a predetermined time period after the fuel injection is resumed following termination of a fuel cut has increased from a value less than a predetermined second threshold to a value greater than or equal to the predetermined second threshold, the fuel cut being configured to stop the fuel injection when the internal combustion engine is operating, the predetermined second threshold being set less than the predetermined first threshold (fig. 4 and 5 show the tracking of oxygen concentration following fuel cuts), and
correct, when the oxygen concentration detected by the oxygen sensor in the predetermined time period after the fuel injection is resumed following the termination of the fuel cut has increased to the value greater than or equal to the predetermined second threshold, an operation amount of the exhaust gas recirculator to reduce an exhaust gas recirculation amount (fig. 4 shows that EGR is discontinued after a fuel cut due to oxygen concentration increasing discussed in col. 16, lines 20-49).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses wherein the predetermined second threshold is configured to be set to a value exceeding a range of fluctuation of the oxygen concentration occurring after termination of the catalyst neutralization processing (as per 112 rejection the correction is done to sufficiently achieve the desired values).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses 4. The internal-combustion-engine control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the exhaust gas recirculation processor is configured to close an exhaust gas recirculation valve in executing the catalyst neutralization processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (U.S. Pat. No. 10,400,695).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses wherein the catalyst neutralization processor is configured to set a correction coefficient by linear interpolation in accordance with the oxygen concentration (shown in fig. 5).
Yamaguchi does not disclose provided that the correction coefficient for the oxygen concentration at the predetermined first threshold is defined as zero and the correction coefficient for the oxygen concentration at the predetermined second threshold is defined as one.
The requirement for overcoming, or not being obvious, is that the parts must be greater as a whole (synergism) (See MPEP 716.02(a)). The combination of exhaust sensors with a computer is a known structure. The known benefit of computers for quick calculations and actuation of a system is an obvious, known and implemented technique. The programming of computers with mathematical equations is a necessity especially coefficients which are a part of all variables in an equation. The cited reference teaches a program with its chosen mathematical relationship. The ability to develop your own mathematical relationship is an obvious optimization that would be obvious to try with the finite variables to consider, that has predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. Many coefficients operate in a range from zero to one, specifically the A/F ratio is one that operates in this way and so this mathematical relationship is a design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please review when considering a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. 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, 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights