3Notice 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
Claim 2 is objected to because on line 7, the word “senor” should be --sensor--. Please recheck all claims to correct all typographical errors.
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) 1-3, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0056830 (Smits) (equivalent with DE 10 2010 028846).
Regarding independent claim 1, Smits discloses a method for monitoring an exhaust gas catalytic converter of an internal combustion engine, the method comprising the steps of: providing that the internal combustion engine includes a reactant metering device (note figure 1); operating the internal combustion engine at a first load point with a first metering rate of the reactant metering device (paragraph 27, the efficiency of the SCR system also depends greatly on the quantity of urea metered in); determining, during operation with the first metering rate, a first actual NH3 value and a first actual catalytic converter efficiency; calculating a first observation value based on the first actual NH3 value, the first actual catalytic converter efficiency, a first target NH3 value, and a first target catalytic converter efficiency ; operating the internal combustion engine at the first load point with a second metering rate of the reactant metering device; determining, during operation with the second metering rate, a second actual NH3 value and a second actual catalytic converter efficiency; calculating a second observation value based on the second actual NH3 value, the second actual catalytic converter efficiency, a second target NH3 value, and a second target catalytic converter efficiency (Paragraph 27 states “By monitoring the excess ammonia downstream from the ASC, optimal use may be made of the efficiency of the SCR system with regard to the metering quantity, without risking too large an ammonia excess, since in the event of a detection of ammonia due to overdosing by the SCR control, the sensor value is used for correcting the variable of the SCR control”, meaning the NH3 value is calculated at various locations that meets the claimed limitation “second NH3 value”); comparing a first observation value and a second observation value; and evaluating the exhaust gas catalytic converter based on a comparison resulting at least in part from the step of comparing (paragraph 41 states “[0041] The fitness function for optimizing the NH3 detection results from the sum of the matches between the detection of the virtual NH3 sensor with the comparison of the measured ammonia at the test stand. In other words, if the NH3 within the evaluated measuring window is on average above 10 ppm, the reference indicates a logical 1, and otherwise, a 0. The virtual parameterization of the NH3 sensor is now designed by the GA in such a way that the GA matches the reference preferably often”, meaning the observation values from continuously ammonia detections are compared and evaluated).
Regarding claim 2, Smits discloses that, wherein at least one of: (a) an actual NH3 value is determined by way of a first NOx sensor that is arranged fluidically upstream of the exhaust gas catalytic converter and a control of the reactant metering device that is arranged fluidically between the first NOx sensor and the exhaust gas catalytic converter; and (b) an actual catalytic converter efficiency is determined by way of first NOx sensor and a second NOx senor which is fluidically arranged downstream the from exhaust gas catalytic converter (figure 1 clearly shows two NOx sensors upstream and downstream of the catalytic converter connected to the reactant metering unit and NH3 sensors).
Regarding claim 3, Smits discloses that wherein at least one of:(a) the actual NH3 value is at least one of the first actual NH3 value and the second actual NH3 value; and (b) the actual catalytic converter efficiency is at least one of the first actual catalytic converter efficiency and the second actual catalytic converter efficiency (the NH3 value must be one of the actual NH3 values and the actual catalytic converter efficiency must also be one of the calculated actual catalytic converter efficiency).
Regarding claims 9-10, Smits clearly teaches that, wherein an evaluation of the internal combustion engine is stored in a load characteristic map (note figure 2).
Regarding independent claim 11, Smits discloses an internal combustion engine, comprising: an exhaust gas catalytic converter; a reactant metering device; a first NOx sensor; a second NOx sensor; and a control device, the first NOx sensor being arranged fluidically upstream from the exhaust gas catalytic converter, the reactant metering device being arranged fluidically between the first NOx sensor and the exhaust gas catalytic converter, the second NOx sensor being arranged fluidically downstream from the exhaust gas catalytic converter (note figure 1), the control device being configured for carrying out a method for monitoring an exhaust gas catalytic converter of an internal combustion engine, the method comprising the steps of: providing that the internal combustion engine includes the reactant metering device (paragraph 27, the efficiency of the SCR system also depends greatly on the quantity of urea metered in); operating the internal combustion engine at a first load point with a first metering rate of the reactant metering device; determining, during operation with the first metering rate, a first actual NH3 value and a first actual catalytic converter efficiency; calculating a first observation value based on the first actual NH3 value, the first actual catalytic converter efficiency, a first target NH3 value, and a first target catalytic converter efficiency; operating the internal combustion engine at the first load point with a second metering rate of the reactant metering device; determining, during operation with the second metering rate, a second actual NH3 value and a second actual catalytic converter efficiency (Paragraph 27 states “By monitoring the excess ammonia downstream from the ASC, optimal use may be made of the efficiency of the SCR system with regard to the metering quantity, without risking too large an ammonia excess, since in the event of a detection of ammonia due to overdosing by the SCR control, the sensor value is used for correcting the variable of the SCR control”, meaning the NH3 value is calculated at various locations that meets the claimed limitation “second NH3 value”); calculating a second observation value based on the second actual NH3 value, the second actual catalytic converter efficiency, a second target NH3 value, and a second target catalytic converter efficiency; comparing a first observation value and a second observation value; and evaluating the exhaust gas catalytic converter based on a comparison resulting at least in part from the step of comparing (paragraph 41 states “[0041] The fitness function for optimizing the NH3 detection results from the sum of the matches between the detection of the virtual NH3 sensor with the comparison of the measured ammonia at the test stand. In other words, if the NH3 within the evaluated measuring window is on average above 10 ppm, the reference indicates a logical 1, and otherwise, a 0. The virtual parameterization of the NH3 sensor is now designed by the GA in such a way that the GA matches the reference preferably often”, meaning the observation values from continuously ammonia detections are compared and evaluated).
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 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0056830 (Smits). Smits discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the specific operating steps including the percentages in claim 4, calculating the difference between observation values in claim 5, weighting functions in claims 6-7, and a second observation value is determined respectively at a plurality of points in time in claim 8. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A) Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation, note In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). It would have been a “routine optimization” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide the operating steps (including the percentages in claim 4, calculating the difference between observation values in claim 5, weighting functions in claims 6-7, and a second observation value is determined respectively at a plurality of points in time in claim 8) as claimed in Smits for the purpose of improving the accuracy from calculating/forming the effective catalytic converter efficiency.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Graichen, Quiqley, Haft, Schwarz, and Ripper disclose systems for improving the catalytic converter efficiency by using NOx sensors, reactant metering device and controllers.
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
2/27/2026