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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts of setting a delay time and estimating an emission amount including mere data gathering steps of collecting sensor information to perform the calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data gathering steps do not add meaningful limitations to the method as they are insignificant extra solution activities. (See MPEP 2106(g)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because (to determine subject matter eligibility a two step process analysis is required outlined in MPEP 2106):
In Reference to Claims 1-6
a. Step 1: is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
-Yes
b. Step 2A prong 1: is the claim directed to an abstract idea?
-Yes, because it falls under the grouping of a mental process of determining/comparing values. Specifically, the steps of ‘setting’ and ‘estimate an emissions amount’ which are based on comparison of the values output by the retrieved sensors, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. A person can identify, in their mind, a difference based on two values. Additionally, the data is merely gathered and evaluated and then nothing is done with this information (i.e.-no active step as a result of the estimation).
c. Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recited additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
-No, because the data gathering steps do not add meaningful limitations as they are insignificant extra solution activities. (See MPEP 2106(g)). Additionally, “the processing circuitry” is recited with a high level of generality. The processing circuitry and associated components do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
d. Step 2B asks whether the claim is drawn to significantly more and since it does not apply this judicial exception in a meaningful way it cannot be said to be significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 2021/0017924).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Tanaka, Figures 1-8)
Tanaka et al. (Tana) discloses:
An exhaust monitoring apparatus mounted on a vehicle including an exhaust purification device (31) that is disposed in an exhaust passage (24) of an engine (10) (See Tana, Paragraph [0021]), the exhaust purification device (31) being configured to remove nitrogen oxides contained in exhaust gas (See Tana, Paragraph [0024]), the exhaust monitoring apparatus comprising:
a nitrogen oxide sensor (34) disposed downstream of the exhaust purification device (31) in the exhaust passage (24) and configured to measure a concentration of nitrogen oxides contained in exhaust gas (See Tana, Paragraph [0024]);
an air flow meter (13) disposed in an intake passage (11) of the engine (10) and configured to measure an amount of air flowing through the intake passage (11); and
processing circuitry (40) configured to:
set a transport delay time, the transport delay time spanning from when air passes through a portion of the intake passage (11) where the air flow meter (13) is provided to when exhaust gas derived from the air that has passed through the air flow meter (13) reaches the nitrogen oxide sensor (34) (See Tana, Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]); and
estimate an emission amount of nitrogen oxides based on an output value of the nitrogen oxide sensor (34) and an output value of the air flow meter (13) that was output earlier than a point in time at which the nitrogen oxide sensor (34) output the output value by the transport delay time. (See Tana, Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
In Reference to Claim 3
(See Tanaka, Figures 1-8)
Tana discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set the transport delay time based on the output value of the air flow meter (13). (See Tana, Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2021/0017924) in view of Bush et al. (US 5,535,135).
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Tanaka, Figures 1-8)
Tana discloses:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set the transport delay time based on a rotational speed of the engine (10). (See Tana, Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Tana discloses the claimed invention except:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set the transport delay time based on a load of the engine.
Bush discloses an exhaust gas monitoring device. (See Bush, Abstract). Bush discloses additionally using engine load to set transport delay time. (See Bush, Column 22, Line 38 – Column 23, Line 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also used engine load to set the transport delay time of Tana, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas monitoring devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that utilizing the additional data point of engine load would have enhanced the accuracy of the transport delay time calculation resulting in an improved efficiency and control of emissions. (See Bush, Column 1, Lines 19-25).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2021/0017924) in view of Komoriya et al. (US 5,505,174).
In Reference to Claim 4
Tana discloses:
wherein the vehicle includes a recirculation passage configured to recirculate exhaust gas to the intake passage. (See Tana, Paragraph [0036] w/respect to EGR).
The device of Tana discloses at least that an EGR passage/connection exists via an EGR valve control.
Tana discloses the claimed invention except:
the processing circuitry is configured to correct the transport delay time based on an EGR rate, the EGR rate being a ratio of an amount of exhaust gas that has flowed into the intake passage through the recirculation passage to a sum of an amount of air drawn into the intake passage and the amount of the exhaust gas.
Komoriya et al. (Komo) discloses an exhaust gas monitoring system. (See Komo, Abstract). Komo discloses processing circuitry is configured to correct the transport delay time based on an EGR rate, the EGR rate being a ratio of an amount of exhaust gas that has flowed into the intake passage through the recirculation passage to a sum of an amount of air drawn into the intake passage and the amount of the exhaust gas. (See Komo, Column 11, Lines 50-51 & Column 8, Lines 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have corrected the transport delay time by the EGR rate, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas monitoring systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that correcting the transport delay time by the EGR rate would enhance the accuracy of the transport delay time improving the overall monitoring device. (See Komo, Column 11, Lines 44-47).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshikawa, Gady, Osburn, and Glugla show exhaust monitoring 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