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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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 1-5 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.
The term “relatively large” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because the term “relatively large” is not defined, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether a discharge amount of ammonia discharged from the three-way catalyst device could be considered relatively large. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as consistent with the cited art as described below.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and inherent the 112 deficiency of their parent claim.
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, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yacoub (U.S. 2014/0013726).
Re claim 1:
Yacoub discloses a controller (12, controller - Para 22) for a vehicle (1, vehicle - Para 17) equipped with an engine (2, engine - Para 17), the engine (2) including a three-way catalyst device (78, three way catalyst - Para 27) disposed in an exhaust passage (48, exhaust passage - Para 26)(see Figs. 1-4), wherein
the controller (12) comprises processing circuitry (102, microprocessor unit - Para 30), and
the processing circuitry (102) is configured to execute (Para 16 - “…a controller configured to carry out the method depicted in Fig. 3…”; Para 30 - “…instructions executable by processor 102 for performing the methods…”)
a determination process (see Fig. 3 at 306 and Para 40) that determines whether a discharge amount of ammonia discharged from the three-way catalyst device (78) is relatively large (see Fig. 4 at 404 and 414, Paras 50 and 53 (see also Para 16 - “…a temperature of a catalyst in an internal combustion engine is determined. If the temperature of the catalyst exceeds a first threshold at which an ammonia capacity of the catalyst for the temperature is below a current stored ammonia level in the catalyst…” and Para 15 - “…to ensure sufficient conversion of NOx and that these temperatures do not exceed a level at which ammonia is released to the ambient environment (e.g., ammonia slip)”)); and
a combustion temperature reduction process (see Fig. 3 at 308 and Paras 41-44) that reduces a combustion temperature of the engine (2) when the determination process determines that the discharge amount is relatively large (see Fig. 4 at 406 and 416 and Paras 50 and 53 and see Fig. 3 at 308 and Paras 41-44).
Re claim 3:
Yacoub discloses the controller (12) for the vehicle (1) according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the combustion temperature reduction process (308) includes a process that increases a recirculation amount of exhaust gas to intake air (see Fig. 3 at 308 - “INCREASE EGR RATE” and Para 43).
Re claim 5:
Yacoub discloses the controller (12) for the vehicle (1) according to claim 1 (as described above),
wherein the vehicle is a hybrid electric vehicle (see Fig. 1 and Para 17) including the engine (2) and a motor (6, energy conversion device - Para 18 (“…energy conversion device 6, which may include a motor…””)) as drive sources for traveling (see Fig. 1 and Paras 17-18), and
the processing circuitry (102) is configured to execute a torque compensation process (see Fig. 3 at 308 and Paras 41-42) that compensates for a reduction in engine torque resulting from execution of the combustion temperature reduction process by supplying motor torque (see Fig. 3 at 308 and Paras 41-42).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yacoub (U.S. 2014/0013726) in view of Yoshioka et al. (U.S. 2012/0227385).
Re claim 2:
Yacoub discloses the controller (12) for the vehicle (1) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Yacoub fails to disclose wherein the engine further includes an air-fuel ratio sensor disposed in a section of the exhaust passage downstream of the three-way catalyst device, and the processing circuitry is configured to execute an air-fuel ratio sub-feedback control based on a detection result of the air-fuel ratio sensor.
Yoshioka teaches a controller (70, electric control unit - Para 50) for a vehicle (Fig. 1) wherein an engine (10, internal-combustion engine - Para 43) includes an air-fuel ratio sensor (54, air/fuel ratio sensor - Para 48) disposed in a section of an exhaust passage (50, exhaust passage - Para 43) downstream of a three-way catalyst device (52, three-way catalyst - Para 48), and processing circuitry (71, microprocessor - Para 51) is configured to execute an air-fuel ratio sub-feedback control (Figs. 5-8) based on a detection result of the air-fuel ratio sensor (54)(see Figs. 5-8, Paras 63-64 and Paras 88-100 (see especially Paras 63-64 and 90)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the controller of Yacoub after that of Yoshioka, thereby including an air fuel ratio sensor in a section of the exhaust passage of Yacoub downstream of the three-way catalyst device of Yacoub, and configuring the processing circuity of Yacoub to execute air-fuel ratio sub-feedback control based on the detection result of the air-fuel ratio sensor, all as taught by Yoshioka, for the advantage of being able to exhibit the oxygen absorbing and discharging ability of the three-way catalyst according to its designed ability (Yoshioka; Para 63).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yacoub (U.S. 2014/0013726) in view of Leone et al. (U.S. 2017/0317626).
Re claim 4:
Yacoub discloses the controller (12) for the vehicle (1) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Yacoub fails to disclose wherein the combustion temperature reduction process includes a process that retards an ignition timing.
Leone teaches wherein a combustion temperature reduction process includes a process that retards an ignition timing (Para 19 - “…For example, during wide-open throttle (e.g., at high engine loads ), the spark timing may be controlled at maximum brake torque (MBT), which can correspond to BTDC, to increase engine power and efficiency. In other examples, the spark timing may be slightly retarded from MBT in order to reduce engine cylinder pressures and temperature, engine knocking, and engine wear, and to increase vehicle drivability and comfort and to increase fuel economy. Reducing engine cylinder temperatures may aid in reducing engine emissions, such as nitrogen oxides ( NOx)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the combustion temperature reduction process of Yacoub after that of Leone, thereby including a process that retards an ignition timing in the temperature reduction process in Yacoub in the way taught by Leone, for the advantage of aiding in reducing engine emissions (Leone; Para 19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 7/17/26
Prosecution Insights