DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-16, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,448,912. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the claims of the present application are included in the claims of the issued patent.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,448,912 in view of Mauro et al. (US 2019/0085745).
In Reference to Claim 1
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,448,912 discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 except:
Wherein the flow resistance is a ratio between the pressure change and the flow rate.
Mauro et al. (Mauro) discloses an exhaust gas particulate filter system. (See Mauro, Abstract). Mauro discloses calculating flow resistance is a ratio between the pressure change and the flow rate. (See Mauro, Paragraph [0032] & Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculated flow resistance using a ratio between the pressure change and the flow rate, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that flow resistance could be calculated accurately using conventionally installed sensors, without the need for additional more complex sensors thereby reducing the complexity and overall cost of the system. (See Mauro, Paragraph [0032]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinugawa et al. (US 2002/0196153).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinugawa et al. (Kinu) discloses:
A system, comprising:
a controller (2) (See Kinu, Paragraph [0049]) configured to:
receive a pressure change and a flow rate (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]);
determine a pressure change value based on the pressure change and the flow rate (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066]);
trigger a first failure warning based on the pressure change value being below a pressure change value threshold, wherein triggering the first failure warning comprises providing a first notification via an operator input/output device (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]); and
trigger a second failure warning based the pressure change value being at or above the pressure change value threshold, wherein triggering the second failure warning comprises providing a second notification via the operator input/output device. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein determining the pressure change value comprises: determining an equation based on the pressure change and the flow rate; and determining a slope of the equation, the slope of the equation corresponding to the pressure change value. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066] & [0079]-[0083]).
The Examiner notes that the pressure change value of Kinu (i.e.-apparent passage area) is a calculation representing a rate of change of pressure over time for determinations which is a slope value.
In Reference to Claim 3
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the pressure change value is a pressure change slope. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066] & [0079]-[0083]).
The Examiner notes that the pressure change value of Kinu (i.e.-apparent passage area) is a calculation representing a rate of change of pressure over time for determinations which is a slope value.
In Reference to Claim 4
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein triggering the first failure warning or the second failure warning is responsive to a flow resistance being less than a flow resistance threshold. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 5
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the flow resistance is a ratio between the pressure change and the flow rate. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
The Examiner notes that apparent area calculation is a ratio of flow rate and pressure change representing a flow resistance of the DPF.
In Reference to Claim 6
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the first failure warning is indicative of a first failure type, the first failure type corresponding to a damaged filter. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 7
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the second failure warning is indicative of a second failure type, the second failure type corresponding to a leaking filter. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 8
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
A method of diagnosing an aftertreatment system component comprising:
receiving a pressure change and a flow rate associated with a component (21) of the aftertreatment system (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]);
determining a pressure change value based on the pressure change and the flow rate (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066]);
triggering a first failure warning based on the pressure change value being below a pressure change value threshold, wherein triggering the first failure warning comprises providing a first notification via an operator input/output device (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]); and
triggering a second failure warning based on the pressure change value being at or above the pressure change value threshold, wherein triggering the second failure warning comprises providing a second notification via the operator input/output device. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 9
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein determining the pressure change value comprises: determining an equation based on the pressure change and the flow rate; and determining a slope of the equation, the slope of the equation corresponding to the pressure change value. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066] & [0079]-[0083]).
The Examiner notes that the pressure change value of Kinu (i.e.-apparent passage area) is a calculation representing a rate of change of pressure over time for determinations which is a slope value.
In Reference to Claim 10
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the pressure change value is a pressure change slope. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066] & [0079]-[0083]).
The Examiner notes that the pressure change value of Kinu (i.e.-apparent passage area) is a calculation representing a rate of change of pressure over time for determinations which is a slope value.
In Reference to Claim 11
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein triggering the first failure warning or the second failure warning is responsive to a flow resistance being less than a flow resistance threshold. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
The Examiner notes that apparent area calculation is a ratio of flow rate and pressure change representing a flow resistance of the DPF.
In Reference to Claim 12
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the flow resistance is compared to the flow resistance threshold within a flow rate interval, the flow rate interval bounded by a minimum flow rate and a maximum flow rate. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066] & Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
The Examiner notes that the pressure change value is bounded by a minimum (i.e.->10 g/s) and a maximum value (i.e.-maximum operating flow rate of the engine).
In Reference to Claim 13
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the component is a filter, wherein the first failure warning is indicative of a first failure type, and wherein the first failure type corresponds the filter being damaged. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 14
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the component is a filter, wherein the second failure warning is indicative of a second failure type, and wherein the second failure type corresponding to the filter leaking. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 15
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a controller (2) (See Kinu, Paragraph [0049]), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receive a pressure change and a flow rate (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]);
determine a pressure change value based on the pressure change and the flow rate (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066]);
trigger a first failure warning based on the pressure change value being below a pressure change value threshold, wherein triggering the first failure warning comprises providing a first notification via an operator input/output device (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]); and
trigger a second failure warning based the pressure change value being at or above the pressure change value threshold, wherein triggering the second failure warning comprises providing a second notification via the operator input/output device. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 16
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein determining the pressure change value comprises: determining an equation based on the pressure change and the flow rate; and determining a slope of the equation, the slope of the equation corresponding to the pressure change value. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066] & [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 17
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein triggering the first failure warning or the second failure warning is responsive to a flow resistance being less than a flow resistance threshold.
In Reference to Claim 18
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the pressure change value is compared to the pressure change value threshold within a flow rate interval, the flow rate interval bounded by a minimum flow rate and a maximum flow rate. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066] & Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
The Examiner notes that the pressure change value is bounded by a minimum (i.e.->10 g/s) and a maximum value (i.e.-maximum operating flow rate of the engine).
In Reference to Claim 19
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the first failure warning is indicative of a first failure type, the first failure type corresponding to a damaged filter. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
In Reference to Claim 20
(See Kinugawa, Figures 1-17)
Kinu discloses:
wherein the second failure warning is indicative of a second failure type, the second failure type corresponding to a leaking filter. (See Kinu, Paragraphs [0079]-[0083]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagado, Johnson, Kobayashi, Tsuji, Tandon, Mauro, Hall, and Sato show exhaust particulate filter diagnostic devices within the general state of the art of invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights