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 .
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because
Figure 5B is blurry which makes the text illegible.
Figure 6 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “58” has been used to designate both the ignition switch and the fuel system processor. The examiner suggests to change 58 to 54 for the ignition switch.
Figure 6 shows a fuel conduit (30) that is not connected to anything. This does not align with what is described in the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
747
1033
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan (US 20180328309 A1) in view of Cotton (US 5623907 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sloan discloses A system for calibrating a fuel gauge of a vehicle, the system comprising [Sloan ¶ 0005]:
a fuel system processor configured to [Sloan ¶ 00117 "The ECU may receive input from one or more sensor." The ECU is the fuel system processor.]:
transmit a first signal [Sloan ¶ 00117 "The ECU may receive input from one or more sensor." The first signal is the raw sensor data that is received.]; and
receive, from an electronic control module (ECM) of the vehicle, a second signal [Sloan ¶ 0040 “Lines 250 and 252 may provide feedback of the actual voltages across the coils of the gauge 230 for closed loop control of gauge 230 in the manner described below.”]; and
a fuel level interface circuit in electrical communication between the fuel system processor and the ECM, the fuel level interface circuit configured to [Sloan ¶ 00117 "ECU" The ECU is both the fuel system processor and the fuel level interface circuit. Sloan teaches the ECU can contain one or more processors ¶ 0031.]:
receive the first signal [Sloan ¶ 00117 "The ECU may receive input from one or more sensor." The first signal is the raw sensor data that is received.]; and
transmit a third signal that corresponds to the first signal to the ECM, causing the ECM to transmit the second signal [Sloan ¶ 0118 "gauge commands" The third signal is the gauge command that take the raw sensor data (first signal) and adjusts them based on the compensation scheme to create the third signal.];
wherein the fuel system processor and/or the fuel level interface circuit are configured to calibrate the gauge such that a fuel level in a tank corresponding to the first signal is substantially the same as the fuel level corresponding to the second signal [Sloan ¶ 0050 and ¶ 0120]:
by adjusting or generating the correspondence between the first signal and the fuel level in the tank [Sloan ¶ 0050 "In some instances, the characteristics or parameters of the various sensors and/or gauges may be automatically detected and updated when the ECU is placed into communication with the sensors and/or gauges." The first signal will be adjusted based on the type of sensors used to detect the fuel level.]; and/or
by adjusting the correspondence between the first signal and the third signal [Sloan ¶ 0120 " the ECU may determine a gauge command based on sensor input and selected compensations scheme." The compensations scheme is the adjusting that occurs between the first signal and the third signal.].
Sloan does not explicitly teach a separate fuel system processor and a fuel system interface circuit. Sloan teaches the ECU that performs the functions of a fuel system processor and a fuel system interface circuit containing one or more processors [Sloan ¶ 0031 “The ECU may contain one or more processor. The one or more processors may be microprocessors. The microprocessors may be useful to determine a command to be sent to the gauge depending on input received at the ECU. The microprocessors may perform one or more steps as dictated by non-transitory computer readable media stored in memory.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have separate microprocessors within the ECU that perform the functions of a fuel system processor and a fuel system interface circuit.
Sloan does not explicitly teach a second signal that corresponds to a fuel level to be displayed on a gauge of the vehicle. Sloan does teach “closed loop control of gauge.”
However, in a related field of invention, Cotton does teach a second signal that corresponds to a fuel level to be displayed on a gauge of the vehicle [Cotton, Col 18 lines 37-41 "The fuel gauge is operated in a closed loop manner, i.e., the microcontroller 600 reads the gauge voltage and supplies control feedback current via lead 638 for semiconductor switch 640 to provide the desired gauge voltage." The microcontroller is the ECM.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the fuel monitoring system using a closed loop control of a fuel gauge as taught by Sloan with using the closed loop control to specifically make sure the read gauge voltage is the same as the desired gauge voltage as taught by Cotton in order to more accurately display the fuel level on the fuel gauge.
Regarding claim 2, Sloan and Cotton teach claim 1. Sloan further teaches wherein the fuel system processor is configured, during calibration of the gauge, to transmit the first signal regardless of the actual fuel level in the tank [Sloan ¶ 0068 "Performing diagnostics 534 may include receiving one or more signal through the ECU. The signals received from the ECU may include signals received from one or more sensors."].
Regarding claim 3, Sloan and Cotton teach claim 1. Sloan further teaches wherein:
the fuel system processor and the fuel level interface circuit are mounted to the vehicle [Sloan ¶ 0042 "FIG. 3 shows an example of an ECU 300 within a vehicle 350, provided in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The ECU may be mounted on the vehicle or within the vehicle."]; and
the system comprises a user interface that is [Sloan ¶ 0065 "An initialization device may include a user interface that may display collected information, and/or accept a command from a user." and ¶ 0098]:
mounted to the vehicle [Sloan ¶ 0103 "For example, the ECU may include a display that may show a user interface. A user may be capable of interacting directly with the ECU."]; and
configured to receive a user input and to cause, based at least in part on the user input, calibration of the gauge [Sloan ¶ 0066 " Such initialization steps may provide initial, calibration, or maintenance steps with the ECU." and ¶ 0094].
Regarding claim 4, Sloan and Cotton teach claim 1. Sloan further teaches wherein the tank comprises a compressed gas tank [Sloan ¶ 0036 " A gaseous fuel containing device 210 may be a tank, container, or vessel. The gaseous fuel containing device may be capable of containing a gaseous fuel … Any reference to gaseous fuel may include a fuel stored as a compressed gas, as a liquefied gas or as a liquid under its own vapor pressure].
Regarding claim 6, Sloan and Cotton teach claim 1. Sloan further teaches wherein the second signal comprises a controller area network (CAN) bus signal [Sloan ¶ 0148 "The ECU may send and receive data to and from the ECU using the CAN protocol or other vehicle communication protocol"].
Regarding claim 7, Sloan and Cotton teach claim 1. Sloan further teaches wherein the third signal comprises a voltage, a current, and/or is indicative of a resistance [Sloan ¶ 0118 "Examples of gauge commands may include one or more voltage value provided to a gauge, and/or any other signals provided to the gauge."].
Regarding claim 9, Sloan and Cotton teach claim 1. Sloan further teaches wherein, for each of a plurality of target fuel levels, the fuel system processor is configured to vary the transmitted first signal until the fuel level corresponding to the received second signal is substantially the same as the target fuel level [Sloan ¶ 0117-0118 "The ECU may perform one or more calculation in accordance with the compensation scheme. The calculation may incorporate one or more sensor values." The targe fuel level is dependent on the sensor readings that are then adjusted based on the compensation scheme.].
Regarding claim 10, Sloan and Cotton teach claim 9. Sloan further teaches wherein the target fuel levels include:
a fuel level that is within 10% of an empty fuel level;
a fuel level that is within 10% of a full fuel level; and
a plurality of fuel levels that are between the empty fuel level and the full fuel level [Sloan ¶ 0038 "The gauge indication may be representative of the percentage that the tank is full of natural gas, e.g., F (Full), ½ (50% full), E (empty), or any other fuel level display as described elsewhere herein."].
Regarding claims 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20: All limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10. The method taught/disclosed in claims 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 can clearly perform on the system of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10. Therefore, claims 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan in view of Cotton and in further view of Abowd (US 5379637 A).
Regarding claim 5, Sloan and Cotton teach claim 1. Sloan does teach the sensors being wired to the ECU [Sloan ¶ 0037 "In some embodiments, a temperature sensor 202 and a pressure sensor 204 may be connected to the ECU 200 via wired connections 222, 224. For example, the temperature sensor may be connected to the ECU via one, two, or more lines."]. Sloan and Cotton do not explicitly teach wherein the first signal comprises a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal.
However, in a related field of invention, Abowd does teach wherein the first signal comprises a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal [Abowd, Col 3 lines 45-49 "Microprocessor 52 provides an output command on line 62 comprising a pulse width modulated signal having a pulse length corresponding to the percentage that the fuel tank is full of fuel."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the fuel monitoring system that uses microprocessors in an ECU to send signals as taught by Sloan with using pulse width modulated signals as taught by Abowd in order to more accurately display the fuel level on the fuel gauge. It is well known in the art that microprocessors can use PWM signals to communicate data.
Regarding claim 8, Sloan and Cotton teach claim 1. Sloan and Cotton do not teach wherein the third signal comprises a PWM signal.
However, in a related field of invention, Abowd does teach wherein the third signal comprises a PWM signal [Abowd, Col 3 lines 45-49 "Microprocessor 52 provides an output command on line 62 comprising a pulse width modulated signal having a pulse length corresponding to the percentage that the fuel tank is full of fuel."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the fuel monitoring system that uses microprocessors in an ECU to send signals as taught by Sloan with using pulse width modulated signals as taught by Abowd in order to more accurately display the fuel level on the fuel gauge. It is well known in the art that microprocessors can use PWM signals to communicate data.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, All limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 5 and 8. The method taught/disclosed in claims 15 and 18 can clearly perform on the system of claims 5 and 8. Therefore, claims 15 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights