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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent Number 12,473,853 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: the application claims are merely broader than the patent claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent Number 12,031,464 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: the application claims are merely broader than the patent claims.
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. See 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); and, 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-10, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (Sugiyama) (Patent/Publication Number US 2017/0203755).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 15, Sugiyama discloses a system and method (Figures 2 and 5), comprising: at least one processing circuit (30) structured to perform operations to diagnose at least one component of an exhaust aftertreatment system (93, 85, 86) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0054]), the operations comprising: causing an engine to operate through a sequence of a plurality of engine outputs (e.g. MC, MC1, MC2, MC3, MC4, MC5, MC6, MC7, TCE, TUE, TUE0, TUE1) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0072-0076, 0087-0089]); receiving, from at least one sensor (e.g. 33, 91, 92), a first set of sensor data corresponding to a first engine output (e.g. See Paragraphs [0096-0097] FIG. 8B shows a relationship between the torque command value TCE and the fuel injection amount SE. When the control mode MC is in the normal mode MC1, if the torque command value TCE is less than or equal to the normal torque upper limit value TUE0, the fuel injection amount SE is determined so that the engine 11 generates a torque equal to the torque command value TCE. If the torque command value TCE exceeds the normal torque upper limit value TUE0, the fuel injection amount SE is determined so that the torque generated by the engine 11 is equal to the torque upper limit value TUE0. That is, the fuel injection amount SE (solid line mc1 in FIG. 8B) is determined so that the torque generated by the engine 11 does not exceed the normal torque upper limit value TUE0. When the control mode MC is in the output limit mode MC2, the fuel injection amount SE (solid line mc2 in FIG. 8B) is determined so that the torque generated by the engine 11 does not exceed the torque upper limit value TUE1. That is, the torque generated by the engine 11 is controlled so that it does not exceed the torque upper limit value TUE1.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0086, 0088, 0094-0097]); diagnosing the at least one component based on the first set of sensor data, the diagnosis indicating a failure type (e.g. See Paragraphs [0054, 0058-0059]); and causing at least one of the engine or an electric machine coupled to the engine to operate based on the failure type (e.g. See Paragraphs [0054] The selective reduction catalyst system controller 93 also functions as an abnormality detection unit that detects an abnormality of the selective reduction catalyst system 100. For example, the selective reduction catalyst system controller 93 may detect an abnormality of the selective reduction catalyst system 100 based on outputs of the NOx sensors 91 and 92. For example, the selective reduction catalyst system controller 93 may detect, as an abnormality of the selective reduction catalyst system 100, a state in which the NOx concentration detected at the downstream side of the selective reduction catalyst 86 by the NOx sensor 92 is greater than or equal to a predetermined value. .....) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0054, 0057-0059, 0117, 0123]).
Regarding claim 9, Sugiyama further discloses wherein causing at least one of the engine (11) or the electric machine (12, 21) to operate based on the failure type includes adjusting an energy control strategy including at least one of: increasing usage of the engine relative to the electric machine, or decreasing usage of the engine relative to the electric machine (e.g. See Paragraphs [0058-0059, 0072-0076, 0117-0118]).
Regarding claim 13, Sugiyama further discloses wherein causing at least one of the engine or the electric machine to operate based on the failure type includes decreasing usage of the engine and at least partially using the electric machine to propel a vehicle having the exhaust aftertreatment system (e.g. See Paragraphs [0059] .... That is, in this example case, even after the abnormality detection, the electric motor 21 continues to be controlled in the same manner as before the abnormality detection according to lever operations of a turning operation lever. The broken lines represent temporal transitions in an example case where the driving operations of the engine 11 and the electric motor 21 are stopped and the electric motor 21 continues to be controlled when an abnormality of the selective reduction catalyst system 100 is detected. That is, in this example case, after the abnormality detection, the electric motor 21 continues to be controlled to enable braking of the turning operation of the upper turning body 3 irrespective of lever operations of the turning operation lever. The alternate long and short dashed lines represent temporal transitions in an example case where driving operations of the engine 11 and the electric motor 21 are stopped and control operations of the electric motor 21 are stopped when an abnormality of the selective reduction catalyst system 100 is detected.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0058-0059, 0062-0065, 0123]).
Regarding claim 14, Sugiyama further discloses wherein causing at least one of the engine or the electric machine to operate based on the failure type includes causing the electric machine to propel a vehicle having the exhaust aftertreatment system (e.g. See Paragraphs [0058-0059, 0062-0065, 0123]).
Regarding claim 19, Sugiyama further discloses wherein causing at least one of the engine or the electric machine to operate based on the failure type includes causing the electric machine to propel a vehicle including the at least one component (e.g. See Paragraphs [0058-0059, 0062-0065, 0123]).
Regarding claim 20, Sugiyama further discloses wherein causing at least one of the engine or the electric machine to operate based on the failure type further includes increasing or decreasing usage of the engine without propelling the vehicle (e.g. See Paragraphs [0058-0059, 0062-0065, 0123]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and consists of seven patents:
Ethington et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 11732632), Nakagawa et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2021/0404368), Yoshikawa et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2010/0319667), Hashimoto et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2021/0095610), Miller et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2019/0249640), Wilhelm et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2011/0146240), and Legare et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 7886523), all discloses an exhaust gas purification for use with an internal combustion engine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11-12, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and also to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action, such as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112 2nd paragraph, and double patenting.
Since allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant is encouraged to submit Final Formal Drawings (If Needed) in response to this Office action. The early submission of formal drawings will permit the Office to review the drawings for acceptability and to resolve any informalities remaining therein before the application is passed to issue. This will avoid possible delays in the issue process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Binh Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-4865. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Mark Laurenzi, can be reach on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Binh Q. Tran
/BINH Q TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3748 July 09, 2026
Prosecution Insights