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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 lines 6, “the second well to wheel emissions value” should read “a second well to wheel emissions value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation “wherein the third amount of reductant is greater than the first amount and less than the second amount” actually encompasses. The wherein clause is self-contradictory since it requires the third amount to be both greater than the first amount and less than the second amount. However, that is impossible since claim 10 fixes the second amount to be less than the first amount. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite. The limitation has been interpreted as the third amount of reductant is greater than the second amount and less that the first amount.
Claim 20 it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation “the one or more characteristics” actually encompasses. Claim 18 introduces only “a characteristic,” while claim 20 refers to “one or more characteristics.” It is unclear whether claim 20 intends: (a) the single characteristic from claim 18, now understood to encompass two values, or (b) two separate, newly-introduced characteristics that were never properly introduced. Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite. The limitation has been interpreted as a characteristic (e.g., W2W value) of each type of fuel in a blend.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frazier et al. (WO2023141102A1), hereinafter Frazier.
Regarding claim 1, Frazier discloses a system ("systems for managing powertrain and/or fleet vehicles using a cloud computing system", [0018])comprising: a controller coupled to a powertrain, the powertrain including an engine and electric machine ("the controller 300 is a control system for the vehicle 202 and is at least partially integrated with one or more other sub-control systems such as an engine control module (ECM), transmission control module, powertrain control module, aftertreatment system control module, etc.", [0079], "The vehicle may have an internal combustion engine, a hybrid electric engine, a battery electric motor and/or any other suitable engine and/or motor type", [0029]), the controller comprising one or more processors and one or more memory devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the controller to perform operations ("A controller (e.g., an engine control module (ECM), engine control unit (ECU), other electronic control unit, etc.) for a vehicle includes at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to perform various operations", [0019]) comprising: receiving a first well to wheel emissions value ("determining, by the computing system, a total vehicle emissions value based on an aggregate of the emissions first set of well-to-battery emissions values, the first set of well-to-tank emissions values, and a first set of emissions values produced by an engine of the hybrid powertrain… determining, by the computing system, that the total vehicle emissions value exceeds a predefined threshold value, and causing, by the computing system, the hybrid powertrain to change a first operational parameter responsive to determining that the first emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value", [0158], "By accounting for a total emissions value (e.g., the well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel aggregate total), the systems and methods described herein may mitigate against undesirable emissions from the vehicle and that indirectly affect the vehicle", [0160]); comparing the first well to wheel emissions value to a first threshold and a second threshold ("A user (e.g., a customer, a user of a third party computing system 190, an operator or owner of a vehicle 202) may set/define the threshold (e.g., a maximum value, a minimum value, an acceptable range, etc.)", [0126], "the threshold may be a minimum value, a range, etc.", [0129], "at least one well-to-tank emission value and/or at least one well-to-wheel emissions value is/are compared to a corresponding threshold. For example, the remote computing system 110 may determine that at least one well-to-tank emission value and/or at least one well-to-wheel emissions value is above the predetermined threshold and continue to process 608. In another example, the remote computing system 110 may determine that the well-to-tank emissions value and/or the well-to-wheel emissions value is/are below the predetermined threshold and continue to process 602", [0127], teaches a maximum, minimum value, or range, and range by definition is bound by two threshold values); and implementing one or more aftertreatment controls or one or more powertrain controls based on comparing the first well to wheel emissions value to the first threshold and the second threshold ("The remote computing system 110 may cause a heater of the hybrid powertrain vehicle to turn on or increase in power such that an exhaust gas produced by the engine 210 of the vehicle is heated by the heater", [0156], "The remote computing system 110 may cause the hybrid powertrain to change from an engine only operating mode to an electric motor only operating mode and/or an electric motor and engine combination operating mode", [0157], "causing, by the computing system, the hybrid powertrain to switch from a first mode of operation to a second mode of operation responsive to determining that the second emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value", [0159]).
Regarding claim 3, Frazier discloses wherein implementing the one or more aftertreatment controls further comprises implementing a thermal management mode responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being at or above the first threshold ("causing, by the computing system, the hybrid powertrain to switch from a first mode of operation to a second mode of operation responsive to determining that the second emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value", [0159], "The remote computing system 110 may cause a heater of the hybrid powertrain vehicle to turn on or increase in power such that an exhaust gas produced by the engine 210 of the vehicle is heated by the heater", [0156], "The heater 226 is structured to increase (e.g., by turning on or increasing power) or decrease (e.g., by turning off or decreasing power) the temperature of exhaust gasses", [0062]).
Regarding claim 4, Frazier discloses wherein the engine is coupled to an aftertreatment system that is configured to receive exhaust from the engine ("The exhaust 222 may include an exhaust aftertreatment system 224, which may include one or more filters (e.g., a diesel particulate filter or other filtration device), one or more catalysts (e.g., a selective catalytic reduction system, a three-way catalyst, etc.), one or more reductant dosing systems and devices, one or more heaters 226, and/or any other aftertreatment system component/device... The air system 220 may further include one or more of a variable-geometry turbocharger (VGT), an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), an intake valve, an exhaust valve, a charge air cooler (CAC), an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) cooler, one or more throttles, etc", [0061], "the control signals generated by the air system control circuit 328 may cause the air system 220 to change an intake flow rate or amount at the intake 228, an exhaust flow rate or amount at the exhaust 222, and/or other operational parameters associated with the air system 220", [0094], "an exhaust gas produced by the engine 210 of the vehicle is heated by the heater", [0156]); and wherein implementing the one or more aftertreatment controls further comprises adjusting a flow of the exhaust within the aftertreatment system ("The instructions may also include adjusting a VGT position, an EGR valve positioning to control a flow rate/amount of EGR, an intake valve timing, an exhaust valve timing, adjusting a throttle, bypassing a CAC and/or EGR, etc. of the air system 220", [0105]).
Regarding claim 5, Frazier discloses wherein implementing the one or more powertrain controls comprises adjusting a power split of the engine and the electric machine of the powertrain comprising at least one of: increasing the power split such that an engine power output by the engine increases and an electric machine power output by the electric machine decreases responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being less than the second well to wheel emissions value ("the engine-to-electric battery load may be increased responsive to determining that the emissions value is below a predefined threshold", [0110]); or decreasing the power split such that the engine power output by the engine decreases and the electric machine power output by the electric machine increases responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being greater than the second well to wheel emissions value ("The engine-to-electric battery load may be decreased responsive to determining that the emissions value is above a predefined threshold", [0110]).
Regarding claim 6, Frazier discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the controller to perform operations ([0019]) comprising: receiving a state of charge of a battery coupled to the electric machine, wherein adjusting the power split of the engine and the electric machine of the powertrain further comprises at least one of ("The memory 116 may store a vault 130, according to some arrangements. The vault 130 retrievably stores data associated with the remote computing system 110 and/or any other component of the system 100. That is, the data includes information associated with each of the components of the system 100... The information may also include battery information, such as a battery type, a battery quantity, a battery capacitance, a total capacitance of a battery system, a battery age, a state-of-charge (SOC) of one or more individual batteries, a SOC of the battery system overall (a collective of the SOCs of all the batteries in the system), and/or a battery health of individual batteries", [0040]): increasing the power split such that the engine power output by the engine increases and the electric machine power output by the electric machine decreases responsive to the state of charge of the battery being at or below a state of charge target ("if the battery SOC depletes to at or below a predefined threshold value, then the controller may cause the first mode of operation (or, in some embodiments, a third mode of operation that utilizes both the internal combustion engine and the electric motor depending on if the battery SOC is above a critically low level)", [0109]); or decreasing the power split such that the engine power output by the engine decreases and the electric machine power output by the electric machine increases responsive to the state of charge of the battery being above the state of charge target ("The instructions may also include adjusting operation of an electric motor in response to an electric motor status or condition (e.g., on, off, idle, load amount, temperature, etc.), an emissions output (e.g., emissions values including concentration, cumulative amount, etc.), battery and/or motor health (based on OBD), etc.", [0108], "the engine-to-electric battery load may be increased responsive to determining that the emissions value is below a predefined threshold. The engine-to-electric battery load may be decreased responsive to determining that the emissions value is above a predefined threshold", [0110]).
Regarding claim 8, Frazier discloses wherein implementing the one or more powertrain controls comprises at least one of: adjusting one or more engine operating parameters to reduce an emissions value associated with consuming a fuel responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being at or above the first threshold ("The instructions may also include causing the engine 210 to utilize a CDA operating mode, such as dynamic skip fire (DSF). The DSF operating mode may increase exhaust gas temperatures thereby reducing NOx output as well as reduce fuel consumption", [0105]); or adjusting the one or more engine operating parameters to increase a fuel economy value associated with consuming the fuel responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being at or below the second threshold ("the engine-to-electric battery load may be increased responsive to determining that the emissions value is below a predefined threshold. The engine-to-electric battery load may be decreased responsive to determining that the emissions value is above a predefined threshold", [0110], switching to more electric usage = increase fuel economy).
Regarding claim 9, Frazier discloses wherein implementing the one or more powertrain controls comprises adjusting a transmission shift schedule ("Examples of operational parameters may include, but are not limited to: an fuel-air mixture ratio, a cruise control (CC) droop amount, a transmission shift schedule, a maximum allowed engine speed, a maximum allowed engine torque, a maximum power delivery, maximum engine speed, torque, load values before implementing a derate condition, and other control parameters regarding operation of a vehicle", [0021], "For example, the operational parameter may include, but is not limited to a fuel-to-air mixture, a fluid flow rate through a filter (which may be adjusted via a changing of one or more valve positions, such as an intake air valve), a cruise control droop amount, a transmission shift schedule, a maximum engine speed, a maximum engine torque, a maximum engine power, derate trigger conditions, etc.", [0130]).
Regarding claim 14, Frazier discloses a method comprising: receiving a characteristic regarding a fuel stored at a fuel system coupled to an engine ("The fuel system(s) 260 is structured to provide fuel to the engine 210… the fuel system(s) 260 are structured to store a fuel such as gasoline, diesel, hydrogen fuel, hydrogen fuel cell, etc. and provide the fuel to the engine 210", [0076], "The information may also include fuel characteristics, such as an indication of whether the fuel is from a renewable source or a non-renewable source and/or an actual or an estimated GHG emissions associated with fuel formulation (commonly known as “well to tank” or “WTT”). In some embodiments, the fuel characteristics include an emissions value of using the fuel in the vehicle for powering the vehicle in combination with the well to tank emissions values (the collective value may be known as “well to wheel” or “WTW”)", [0040], "the at least one well-to-tank emissions value of the fuel input is based on receiving, by the remote computing system 110, at least one of a gasoline well-to-tank emissions value, a diesel well-to-tank emissions value, a hydrogen well-to-tank emissions value (e.g., for a hydrogen fuel engine and/or a hydrogen fuel cell engine), and/or other fuel source well-to-tank emissions value", [0116]); and implementing one or more aftertreatment controls or one or more powertrain controls based on the received characteristic ("The remote computing system 110 may cause a heater of the hybrid powertrain vehicle to turn on or increase in power such that an exhaust gas produced by the engine 210 of the vehicle is heated by the heater", [0156], [0160], "The remote computing system 110 may cause the hybrid powertrain to change from an engine only operating mode to an electric motor only operating mode and/or an electric motor and engine combination operating mode", [0157], "instructions to change operational parameters are provided to the vehicle controller 300… the operational parameter may include, but is not limited to a fuel-to-air mixture, a fluid flow rate through a filter (which may be adjusted via a changing of one or more valve positions, such as an intake air valve), a cruise control droop amount, a transmission shift schedule, a maximum engine speed, a maximum engine torque, a maximum engine power, derate trigger conditions, etc.", [0130]).
Regarding claim 15, Frazier discloses wherein the one or more powertrain controls comprise at least one of: adjusting a power split such that an engine power output by the engine changes, based on the received characteristic ([0110]), or adjusting one or more engine operating parameters to change an emissions value associated with consuming the fuel based on the received characteristic ("the instructions may include adjusting a fuel injection quantity, a fuel injection timing, fuel injection events (single versus multiple), and other fuel injection parameters for an engine 210. The instructions may also include adjusting a VGT position, an EGR valve positioning… The instructions may also include adjusting a fuel blend (diesel, natural gas, hydrogen, propane, etc.) by the fuel system 260. The instructions may also include causing the engine 210 to utilize a CDA operating mode, such as dynamic skip fire (DSF). The DSF operating mode may increase exhaust gas temperatures thereby reducing NOx output as well as reduce fuel consumption", [0105]).
Regarding claim 16, Frazier discloses wherein the one or more aftertreatment controls comprise at least one of: causing a reductant delivery system to adjust an amount of reductant provided to an aftertreatment system coupled to the engine based on the received characteristic ("The exhaust 222 may include an exhaust aftertreatment system 224, which may include one or more filters (e.g., a diesel particulate filter or other filtration device), one or more catalysts (e.g., a selective catalytic reduction system, a three-way catalyst, etc.), one or more reductant dosing systems and devices, one or more heaters 226, and/or any other aftertreatment system component/device", [0061], "the controller 300 may include additional control circuits for controlling operational parameters of the exhaust heater 226 and/or the exhaust aftertreatment system 224 (e.g., dosing amounts, dosing timing, flow rates, etc.)", [0096]), or adjusting a flow of an exhaust gas within the aftertreatment system based on the received characteristic ("The instructions may also include adjusting a VGT position, an EGR valve positioning to control a flow rate/amount of EGR, an intake valve timing, an exhaust valve timing, adjusting a throttle, bypassing a CAC and/or EGR, etc. of the air system 220", [0105], "The air system 220 may further include one or more of a variable-geometry turbocharger (VGT), an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), an intake valve, an exhaust valve, a charge air cooler (CAC), an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) cooler, one or more throttles, etc.", [0061]).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier in view of Cunningham et al. (US20220154615A1), hereinafter Cunningham.
Regarding claim 2, Frazier teaches of all limitations of claim 1, as stated above, additionally, wherein the one or more aftertreatment controls comprises: causing a reductant delivery system… provided to an aftertreatment system coupled to the engine responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being at or above the first threshold; or causing the reductant delivery system… provided to the aftertreatment system responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being at or below the first threshold ("causing, by the computing system, the hybrid powertrain to switch from a first mode of operation to a second mode of operation responsive to determining that the second emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value", [0159], "The exhaust 222 may include an exhaust aftertreatment system 224, which may include one or more filters (e.g., a diesel particulate filter or other filtration device), one or more catalysts (e.g., a selective catalytic reduction system, a three-way catalyst, etc.), one or more reductant dosing systems and devices, one or more heaters 226, and/or any other aftertreatment system component/device", [0061], "the controller 300 may include additional control circuits for controlling operational parameters of the exhaust heater 226 and/or the exhaust aftertreatment system 224 (e.g., dosing amounts, dosing timing, flow rates, etc.)", [0096], teaches a reductant delivery (dosing) system that is controlled and triggered by reaching a threshold value however control include dosing amounts in general).
However, Frazier does not teach of to increase an amount of reductant or to decrease the amount of reductant.
Cunningham, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of to increase an amount of reductant or to decrease the amount of reductant ("The controller is structured to command the at least one reductant doser to increase, decrease, or maintain an amount of reductant provided to the exhaust gas based on the determined concentration of one or more of NO and NO.sub.2 in the exhaust gas", [0005], "in response to the NO to NO.sub.2 ratio indicating that the concentration of NO in the exhaust gas is higher than the concentration of NO.sub.2 in the exhaust gas, the reductant delivery circuit 220 is structured to command the reductant doser 40 to inject reductant into the exhaust gas at a ratio of 1 mole of reductant to one mole of Nox… the reductant delivery circuit commands the reductant doser 40 to increase an amount of reductant injected into the exhaust gas, injecting more than 1 mole of reductant into the exhaust gas for every mole of NOx in the exhaust gas", [0046]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of Frazier with the teaching of Cunningham to increase the amount of reductant delivered to the aftertreatment system when the emissions value is high, and decrease it when the emissions value is low with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the effectiveness of the aftertreatment system by matching the reductant dose to what is actually needed (Cunningham, [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Frazier teaches of a method comprising: receiving a first well to wheel emissions value regarding a fuel stored at a fuel system coupled to an engine ("The fuel system(s) 260 is structured to provide fuel to the engine 210… the fuel system(s) 260 are structured to store a fuel such as gasoline, diesel, hydrogen fuel, hydrogen fuel cell, etc. and provide the fuel to the engine 210", [0076], "the received well-to- tank emissions values may correspond to the fuel received by a fuel system 260 of the vehicle 202", [0116], "the “well-to-wheel” emissions value encompasses the well to tank emissions value plus an emissions value of the emissions value of using (e.g., combusting) the fuel in the engine 210", [0117]); comparing the first well to wheel emissions value to at least one of a first threshold or a second threshold ("at least one well-to-tank emission value and/or at least one well-to-wheel emissions value is/are compared to a corresponding threshold", [0127], "A user (e.g., a customer, a user of a third party computing system 190, an operator or owner of a vehicle 202) may set/define the threshold (e.g., a maximum value, a minimum value, an acceptable range, etc.)", [0126]); and implementing one or more controls comprising at least one of ("The exhaust 222 may include an exhaust aftertreatment system 224, which may include one or more filters (e.g., a diesel particulate filter or other filtration device), one or more catalysts (e.g., a selective catalytic reduction system, a three-way catalyst, etc.), one or more reductant dosing systems and devices, one or more heaters 226, and/or any other aftertreatment system component/device", [0061]): causing a reductant delivery system to provide to an aftertreatment system coupled to the engine responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being at or above the first threshold; or causing the reductant delivery system to provide to the aftertreatment system responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being at or below the second threshold, wherein the second amount of reductant is less than the first amount of reductant ("at least one well-to-tank emission value and/or at least one well-to-wheel emissions value is/are compared to a corresponding threshold", [0127], "A user (e.g., a customer, a user of a third party computing system 190, an operator or owner of a vehicle 202) may set/define the threshold (e.g., a maximum value, a minimum value, an acceptable range, etc.)", [0126], [0126] and [0127] teach of an "acceptable range" which provides two threshold values and these values can be WTW emission based, "the controller 300 may include additional control circuits for controlling operational parameters of the exhaust heater 226 and/or the exhaust aftertreatment system 224 (e.g., dosing amounts, dosing timing, flow rates, etc.)", [0096], [0096] teaches of general exhaust controls based on thresholds).
However, Frazier does not teach of a first amount of reductant and a second amount of reductant.
Cunningham, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a first amount of reductant and a second amount of reductant ("The controller is structured to command the at least one reductant doser to increase, decrease, or maintain an amount of reductant provided to the exhaust gas based on the determined concentration of one or more of NO and NO.sub.2 in the exhaust gas", [0005], "in response to the NO to NO.sub.2 ratio indicating that the concentration of NO in the exhaust gas is higher than the concentration of NO.sub.2 in the exhaust gas, the reductant delivery circuit 220 is structured to command the reductant doser 40 to inject reductant into the exhaust gas at a ratio of 1 mole of reductant to one mole of Nox… the reductant delivery circuit commands the reductant doser 40 to increase an amount of reductant injected into the exhaust gas, injecting more than 1 mole of reductant into the exhaust gas for every mole of NOx in the exhaust gas", [0046]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of Frazier with the teaching of Cunningham to provide a first, larger amount of reductant when the emission value is at or above a first threshold, and a second, smaller amount when it is at or below a second threshold with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the effectiveness of the aftertreatment system by matching the reductant dose to what is actually needed (Cunningham, [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Frazier teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above, further comprising: setting a power split of a powertrain comprising the engine and an electric machine, wherein setting the power split comprises at least one of: setting the power split to a first value responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being at or above the first threshold ("the engine-to-electric battery load may be increased responsive to determining that the emissions value is below a predefined threshold. The engine-to-electric battery load may be decreased responsive to determining that the emissions value is above a predefined threshold", [0110]); or setting the power split to a second value responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being at or below the second threshold, wherein the second value is greater than the first value ("at least one well-to-tank emission value and/or at least one well-to-wheel emissions value is/are compared to a corresponding threshold", [0127], "A user (e.g., a customer, a user of a third party computing system 190, an operator or owner of a vehicle 202) may set/define the threshold (e.g., a maximum value, a minimum value, an acceptable range, etc.)", [0126], "the engine-to-electric battery load may be increased responsive to determining that the emissions value is below a predefined threshold. The engine-to-electric battery load may be decreased responsive to determining that the emissions value is above a predefined threshold", [0110], [0126] teaches of an "acceptable range" which provides two threshold values wherein the second threshold is a greater value).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier in view of Kristinsson et al. (US20110166731A1), hereinafter Kristinsson.
Regarding claim 7, Frazier teaches of all limitations of claim 5 as stated above, additionally, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the controller to perform operations ([0019]) comprising: receiving lookahead data and a second location regarding the system ("the positioning sensor 272 is structured to detect a location of the vehicle 202. Accordingly, the positioning sensor 272 includes a one or more receivers for communicating with a global positioning system (GPS)…", [0077]), wherein adjusting the power split of the engine and the electric machine of the powertrain further comprises at least one of ([0108]).
However, Frazier does not teach of regarding a first location regarding a charging station; and increasing the power split such that the engine power output by the engine increases and the electric machine power output by the electric machine decreases responsive to a distance between the first location and the second location being at or above a predetermined distance, or decreasing the power split such that the engine power output by the engine decreases and the electric machine power output by the electric machine increases responsive to the distance between the first location and the second location being below the predetermined distance.
Kristinsson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of regarding a first location regarding a charging station ("a custom point could be "work" at which the PHEV may also be charged", [0017]); and increasing the power split such that the engine power output by the engine increases and the electric machine power output by the electric machine decreases responsive to a distance between the first location and the second location being at or above a predetermined distance, or decreasing the power split such that the engine power output by the engine decreases and the electric machine power output by the electric machine increases responsive to the distance between the first location and the second location being below the predetermined distance ("In the early part of the trip to the particular destination, the engine is used predominantly to propel the vehicle… When the energy that it takes to propel the vehicle under battery power for the remainder of the trip is approximately equal to that stored in the battery, the VCS switches over from engine propulsion to predominantly electric motor propulsion", [0055]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of Frazier with the teaching of Kristinsson to receive location data for a charging station and to adjust the power split to using more engine power when far from the station and more electric power when close to the station with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the emissions performance of the system by favoring electric propulsion in the vicinity of the charging station (Kristinsson, [0009]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier in view of Cunningham, and further in view of Geveci (US20130104530A1), hereinafter Geveci.
Regarding claim 11, modified Frazier teaches of all limitations of claim 10, as stated above, further comprising causing the reductant delivery system to provide a third amount of reductant to the aftertreatment system ("The exhaust 222 may include an exhaust aftertreatment system 224, which may include one or more filters (e.g., a diesel particulate filter or other filtration device), one or more catalysts (e.g., a selective catalytic reduction system, a three-way catalyst, etc.), one or more reductant dosing systems and devices, one or more heaters 226, and/or any other aftertreatment system component/device", [0061], "the controller 300 may include additional control circuits for controlling operational parameters of the exhaust heater 226 and/or the exhaust aftertreatment system 224 (e.g., dosing amounts, dosing timing, flow rates, etc.)", [0096]) responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value being below the first threshold and above the second threshold ("A user (e.g., a customer, a user of a third party computing system 190, an operator or owner of a vehicle 202) may set/define the threshold (e.g., a maximum value, a minimum value, an acceptable range, etc.)", [0126]).
However, modified Frazier does not teach of wherein the third amount of reductant is greater than the first amount and less than the second amount.
Geveci, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the third amount of reductant is greater than the first amount and less than the second amount ("The high response value 312 [is] a value greater than a stoichiometric amount of ammonia", [0037], "The low response value 314 is a value lower than a stoichiometric amount of ammonia", [0040], "The stoichiometric value 320 is an ANR value of 1, or an amount of ammonia that is just sufficient to react all of the NO.sub.x", [0039]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Frazier with the teaching of Geveci to provide a third, in between amount of reductant when the emissions value falls between two thresholds with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the stability of the dosing control by avoiding an abrupt jump between the low and high amounts (Geveci, [0048]).
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier in view of Cunningham, and further in view of Kamada et al. (US20060270519A1), hereinafter Kamada.
Regarding claim 13, modified Frazier teaches of all limitations of claim 12, as stated above, additionally, being below the first threshold and above the second threshold, wherein the third value is greater than the first value and less than the second value ("at least one well-to-tank emission value and/or at least one well-to-wheel emissions value is/are compared to a corresponding threshold", [0127], "A user (e.g., a customer, a user of a third party computing system 190, an operator or owner of a vehicle 202) may set/define the threshold (e.g., a maximum value, a minimum value, an acceptable range, etc.)", [0126], below the first threshold and above the second threshold = acceptable range).
However, modified Frazier does not teach of further comprising setting the power split to a third value responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value.
Kamada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of setting the power split to a third value responsive to the first well to wheel emissions value ("the output of the engine 8 is reduced by an amount corresponding to the driving power provided by the first motor-generator MG1 and/or the second motor-generator MG2", [0090], "NOx emission amount threshold values are determined on the basis of the load states of the engine 8, that is, the region "1", the region "2" and the region "3".", [0094], "the torque assist amount determination means 122 sets torque assist amounts individually for the regions "1" to "3" of FIG. 12 so that in any of the regions "1" to "3" of FIG. 12, the actual NOx emission amount will be less than or equal to the NOx emission amount threshold value of that region", [0102]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Frazier with the teaching of Kamada to set a third intermediate power split value in response to a well to wheel emission value with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the balance of power delivery by having the engine and motor share the driving load together (Kamada, [0090]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier in view of Sanbayashi et al. (US5349816A), hereinafter Sanbayashi.
Regarding claim 17, Frazier teaches of all limitations of claim 16, as stated above, additionally, wherein adjusting the flow of the exhaust gas within the aftertreatment system based on the received characteristic comprises: causing a valve to direct the exhaust gas flow through a second catalyst member responsive to the characteristic being at or above a predetermined threshold; and causing the valve to direct the exhaust gas responsive to the characteristic being below the predetermined threshold ("the air sensors 240 are positioned at various locations throughout the system, such as at an engine inlet, at a position upstream of a first catalyst (DOC), between a first catalyst and a second catalyst (SCR), and/or downstream from second catalyst (e.g., SCR catalyst), etc.", [0074], "The remote computing system 110 may compare the first emissions value to a predefined threshold value. For example, the predefined threshold may be a maximum emissions value (e.g., a maximum NOx value, a maximum particulate value, a maximum GHG value). As described herein, the maximum emissions value may be determined based on a regulation (e.g., a threshold set by a regulatory body or government agency) and/or an emissions goal. The remote computing system 110 may determine that the first emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value. The remote computing system 110 may cause a heater of the hybrid powertrain vehicle to turn on or increase in power such that an exhaust gas produced by the engine 210 of the vehicle is heated by the heater", [0156], "the controller 300 may include additional control circuits for controlling operational parameters of the exhaust heater 226 and/or the exhaust aftertreatment system 224 (e.g., dosing amounts, dosing timing, flow rates, etc.)", [0096], "the operational parameter may include, but is not limited to a fuel-to-air mixture, a fluid flow rate through a filter (which may be adjusted via a changing of one or more valve positions, such as an intake air valve), a cruise control droop amount, a transmission shift schedule, a maximum engine speed, a maximum engine torque, a maximum engine power, derate trigger conditions, etc.", [0130], "A user (e.g., a customer, a user of a third party computing system 190, an operator or owner of a vehicle 202) may set/define the threshold (e.g., a maximum value, a minimum value, an acceptable range, etc.)", [0126], "the threshold may be a minimum value, a range, etc.", [0129], [0127]).
However, Frazier does not teach to bypass a first catalyst member and to flow through the first catalyst member and the second catalyst member.
Sanbayashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of to bypass a first catalyst member ("when it is found in step b7 the engine operates on a lean air/fuel mixture (e.g. at the time point "t1" in FIG. 10), the ECU3' goes to step b3 so as to move the select valve 11 to the position P1, thereby opening the bypass 202 completely and closing the upstream main path 201", Col. 10 lines 29-34) and to flow through the first catalyst member and the second catalyst member ("At an instant the air/fuel ratio is changed to the stoichiometric or rich side from the lean side (e.g. at the time point "to" in FIG. 10), the ECU3' goes to step b8. Then, the ECU3' switches the select valve 11 to the second position P2 to open the upstream main path 201 and close the bypass 202", Col. 10 lines 15-21).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of Frazier with the teaching of Sanbayashi to use a valve to bypass a first catalyst and route exhaust straight to a second catalyst with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the durability and efficiency of the aftertreatment system by only routing exhaust through the first catalyst when it is actually needed (Sanbayashi, Col. 2 lines 35-39).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier in view of Kim (US20230015077A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 18, Frazier teaches of a method comprising: receiving a characteristic regarding a fuel stored at a fuel system coupled to an engine ("the sensors of the vehicle 202 (e.g., the engine sensors 230, the air sensors 240, and the external sensors 270, etc.) detect vehicle operational data (e.g., emissions information) which may include one or more operational parameters of the vehicle 202 and/or any of the information described herein", [0100], "The information may also include fuel characteristics, such as an indication of whether the fuel is from a renewable source or a non-renewable source and/or an actual or an estimated GHG emissions associated with fuel formulation (commonly known as “well to tank” or “WTT”)", [0040]); and implementing one or more aftertreatment controls or one or more powertrain controls based on the characteristic ("The remote computing system 110 may cause a heater of the hybrid powertrain vehicle to turn on or increase in power such that an exhaust gas produced by the engine 210 of the vehicle is heated by the heater", [0156], [0160], "The remote computing system 110 may cause the hybrid powertrain to change from an engine only operating mode to an electric motor only operating mode and/or an electric motor and engine combination operating mode", [0157], "instructions to change operational parameters are provided to the vehicle controller 300… the operational parameter may include, but is not limited to a fuel-to-air mixture, a fluid flow rate through a filter (which may be adjusted via a changing of one or more valve positions, such as an intake air valve), a cruise control droop amount, a transmission shift schedule, a maximum engine speed, a maximum engine torque, a maximum engine power, derate trigger conditions, etc.", [0130]).
However, Frazier does not teach of the characteristic comprising an indication of a blend characteristic of the fuel stored at the fuel system.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the characteristic comprising an indication of a blend characteristic of the fuel stored at the fuel system ("fuel tank 144 may store one or more liquid fuels, including but not limited to: gasoline, diesel, alcohol fuels, biofuels, and electrofuels (e-fuels). In some examples, the fuel may be stored on-board the vehicle as a blend of two or more different fuels. For example, fuel tank 144 may be configured to store a blend of gasoline and ethanol (e.g., E10, E85, etc.) or a blend of gasoline and methanol (e.g., M10, M85, etc.)", [0025], "information regarding characteristics of a fuel dispensed to the vehicle (such as a fuel blend and a fuel energy content) may be provided from vehicle information stored in a memory of a control system of the vehicle", [0087]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of Frazier with the teaching of Kim to receive a characteristic indicating the fuel blend of two fuel types, each having its own emissions value with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of the system’s emissions by accounting for each fuel component’s own contribution instead of treating each blend as one uniform fuel (Kim, [0059]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Frazier teaches of all limitations of claim 18, as stated above, additionally, wherein the characteristic include a well to wheel emissions value ("the fuel characteristics include an emissions value of using the fuel in the vehicle for powering the vehicle in combination with the well to tank emissions values (the collective value may be known as “well to wheel” or “WTW”)", [0040], "the “well-to-wheel” emissions value encompasses the well to tank emissions value plus an emissions value of the emissions value of using (e.g., combusting) the fuel in the engine 210", [0117]), and implementing the one or more aftertreatment controls or the one or more powertrain controls is based on comparing the well to wheel emissions value to a predetermined threshold ("at least one well-to-tank emission value and/or at least one well-to-wheel emissions value is/are compared to a corresponding threshold. For example, the remote computing system 110 may determine that at least one well-to-tank emission value and/or at least one well-to-wheel emissions value is above the predetermined threshold and continue to process 608", [0127]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier in view of Kim, and further in view of Gearhart (US201000187030A1), hereinafter Gearhart.
Regarding claim 20, modified Frazier teaches of all limitations of claim 18, as stated above, additionally, a first amount of a first type of fuel having a first well to wheel emissions value and a second amount of a second type of fuel, different than the first type of fuel and having a second well to wheel emissions value different than the first well to wheel emissions value ("the at least one well-to-tank emissions value of the fuel input is based on receiving, by the remote computing system 110, at least one of a gasoline well-to-tank emissions value, a diesel well-to-tank emissions value, a hydrogen well-to-tank emissions value (e.g., for a hydrogen fuel engine and/or a hydrogen fuel cell engine), and/or other fuel source well-to-tank emissions value", [0116]); and implementing the one or more aftertreatment controls or the one or more powertrain controls is based on: the first well to wheel emissions value and the second well to wheel emission value ("The method also includes determining, by the computing system, that the total vehicle emissions value exceeds a predefined threshold value, and causing, by the computing system, the hybrid powertrain to change a first operational parameter responsive to determining that the first emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value", [0158], "The remote computing system 110 may cause a heater of the hybrid powertrain vehicle to turn on or increase in power such that an exhaust gas produced by the engine 210 of the vehicle is heated by the heater", [0156], [0160], "The remote computing system 110 may cause the hybrid powertrain to change from an engine only operating mode to an electric motor only operating mode and/or an electric motor and engine combination operating mode", [0157], "receiving, by the computing system and from a sensor, a second emissions value; determining, by the computing system, that the second emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value; and causing, by the computing system, the hybrid powertrain to switch from a first mode of operation to a second mode of operation responsive to determining that the second emissions value exceeds the predefined threshold value", [0159]).
However, modified Frazier does not teach of wherein: the blend characteristic indicates that the fuel stored at the fuel system; the one or more characteristics include the first well to wheel emissions value and the second well to wheel emissions value; and the first well to wheel emission value when the first well to wheel emissions value is greater than the second well to wheel emissions value, or the second well to wheel emissions value when the second well to wheel emissions value is greater than the first well to wheel emissions value.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein: the blend characteristic indicates that the fuel stored at the fuel system ("fuel tank 144 may be configured to store a blend of gasoline and ethanol (e.g., E10, E85, etc.) or a blend of gasoline and methanol (e.g., M10, M85, etc.)", [0025]); and the one or more characteristics include the first well to wheel emissions value and the second well to wheel emissions value ("When fuels with various WTP CF are mixed in a refueling station, an average WTP CF may be determined based on an energy balance", [0059], implicit that there are discrete values for each fuel type when calculating an average).
However, Kim does not teach of the first well to wheel emission value when the first well to wheel emissions value is greater than the second well to wheel emissions value, or the second well to wheel emissions value when the second well to wheel emissions value is greater than the first well to wheel emissions value.
Gearhart, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the first well to wheel emission value when the first well to wheel emissions value is greater than the second well to wheel emissions value, or the second well to wheel emissions value when the second well to wheel emissions value is greater than the first well to wheel emissions value ("a first energy source having a first well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions content, a second energy source having a second well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions content and a drive mechanism powered by the first energy source and the second energy source", [0005], "the vehicle controller determines which of the current running total of greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel energy or of the plug-in electrical energy from the battery is higher. Using this information, the vehicle controller adjusts the power distribution between the fuel energy and the plug-in electrical energy to power the vehicle", [0013]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Frazier with the teaching of Kim to receive a characteristic indicating the fuel blend of two fuel types, each having its own emissions value and Gearhart to compare the two fuel components’ emissions values and use whichever one is greater to control the vehicle with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of the system’s emissions by accounting for each fuel component’s own contribution instead of treating each blend as one uniform fuel (Kim, [0059]), and improve the effectiveness of the reducing the emissions of the system by basing control decisions on the higher-emitting energy source so the larger contributor to emissions is never overlooked (Gearhart, [0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights