VOLVO TRUCK CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2021001893 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/893,108 11/23/2015 Andreas Hamsten 138223.506703 1289
26694 7590 08/02/2021
VENABLE LLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON, DC 20043-9998
EXAMINER
GORDON, MATHEW FRANKLIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTOMail@Venable.com
khauser@venable.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS HAMSTEN and JOHAN DAHL
Appeal 2021-001893
Application 14/893,108
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–13, and 16. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A video oral hearing was conducted on
July 15, 2021.
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VOLVO
TRUCK CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-001893
Application 14/893,108

2
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1, 8, 9, and 11–13 are pending. Claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter with certain
limitations italicized:
1. Method for timing of a regeneration process of an
exhaust gas system of a vehicle engine, comprising:
collecting in a computer, during operation of the vehicle,
data on an exhaust gas regeneration capability as a function of
time for a plurality of work days, wherein the exhaust gas
regeneration capability is determined from at least one of the
following: exhaust gas temperature, exhaust gas mass flow,
engine power, engine load, and engine torque,
establishing, via the computer, from the collected data, a
statistical probability function for the exhaust gas regeneration
capability as a function of time over a working day of the
vehicle by adding data from the plurality of work days to each
other, wherein the statistical probability function comprises at
least one of
an average or a most probable exhaust gas regeneration
capability for each one of a group of time bins with a width that
covers several data points from the same day, and
a statistical probability function where the probability for
a successful regeneration is given as a function of time,
identifying, via the computer, from the probability
function, one or several time periods that statistically are
suitable and/or unsuitable for carrying out a regeneration
process, wherein a time period that is statically suitable is one
during which a sufficiently high exhaust gas regeneration
capability is maintained for a sufficient time that it is probable
that a regeneration will be completed, and
initiating the regeneration process during a time period
identified as being statistically suitable for carrying out the
regeneration process.

Appeal 2021-001893
Application 14/893,108

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Chang US 2002/0052674 A1 May 2, 2002
Votsmeier US 2003/0135323 A1 July 17, 2003
Schumacher US 2010/0154389 A1 June 24, 2010
Wagner US 2010/0319331 A1 Dec. 23, 2010
Renneke US 2012/0060483 A1 Mar. 15, 2012
Dea US 2012/0204537 A1 Aug. 16, 2012
Ramberg US 8,359,829 B1 Jan 29, 2013
Kim US 2013/0074477 A1 Mar. 28, 2013
Santhanam US 2015/0285124 A1 Oct. 8, 2015

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Votsmeier, Ramberg, and Santhanam.
II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Votsmeier, Ramberg, Santhanam, and Kim.
III. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Votsmeier, Ramberg, Santhanam, and Schumacher.
IV. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Votsmeier, Wagner, Santhanam.
V. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Votsmeier, Renneke, Chang, and Santhanam.
VI. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Votsmeier, Ramberg, Santhanam, and Dea.
Appeal 2021-001893
Application 14/893,108

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11–13
Independent claims 1 and 11–13 recite an exhaust gas regeneration
capability being determined from at least one of “exhaust gas temperature,
exhaust gas mass flow, engine power, engine load, and engine torque.”
Claims 2, 4, and 6 depend from claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11–13, the Examiner finds that
Votsmeier discloses, inter alia, exhaust gas regeneration capability being
determined from at least one of exhaust gas temperature, exhaust gas mass
flow, engine power, engine load, and engine torque. Final Act. 4 (citing
Votsmeier ¶¶ 19–27). The Examiner also references an Aragon reference
that is not of record in this Appeal. Id. at 2–3. The cited paragraphs of
Votsmeier disclose, inter alia: (1) adjusting operating parameters based on
information “gathered about the future performance of the motor vehicle”
(Votsmeier ¶ 19); (2) sulfur removal based on probability calculations for
relevant parameters defined as “speed and acceleration profiles as well as . .
. geographic positions of the motor vehicles” in an effort to perform the
sulfur removal on “motorways” (Votsmeier ¶¶ 23–24); and (3) motorway
sulfur removal being desirable because the “already high temperatures of the
diesel particulate filter prevail” to lessen the amount of energy needed to
reach the desired temperature (Votsmeier ¶ 26). It appears to us that, in the
Final Action, the Examiner discerns from Votsmeier’s reference to “high
temperatures of the diesel particulate filter” that Votsmeier determines
regeneration capability based on exhaust gas temperature. See Ans. 3–4.
However, there is no explicit disclosure in Votsmeier regarding exhaust gas
temperature or any of the other claimed parameters being used to determine
Appeal 2021-001893
Application 14/893,108

5
regeneration capability. Further, the Examiner’s possible contention that
“high temperatures of the diesel particulate filter” means that Votsmeier
determines regeneration capability based on exhaust gas temperature is, at
best, speculative. Further, it is not apparent to us how the speed and location
data considered by Votsmeier is a determination of exhaust temperature.
Thus, because the Examiner erred in finding that Votsmeier discloses
exhaust gas regeneration capability being determined from at least one of
“exhaust gas temperature, exhaust gas mass flow, engine power, engine
load, and engine torque,” the Examiner has not established prima facie
obviousness, and we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11–13 as
obvious over Votsmeier, Ramberg, and Santhanam. Because claims 2, 4,
and 6 depend from claim 1, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of these
dependent claims.
Rejections II, III, and VI – Claims 3, 5, and 16
Claims 3, 5, and 16 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. The
Examiner makes no finding that Kim, Schumacher, or Dea cure the
deficiencies of Votsmeier by disclosing exhaust gas regeneration capability
being determined from at least one of “exhaust gas temperature, exhaust gas
mass flow, engine power, engine load, and engine torque.” For this reason,
we do not sustain Rejections II, III, or VI.
Rejection IV – Claim 8
Independent claim 8 does not recite exhaust gas regeneration
capability being determined from at least one of “exhaust gas temperature,
exhaust gas mass flow, engine power, engine load, and engine torque.”
Rather, claim 8 recites, for a first vehicle, collecting “data on an exhaust gas
Appeal 2021-001893
Application 14/893,108

6
regeneration capability . . . for a plurality of work days,” and “initiating a
regeneration process . . . [for] a second vehicle” different than the first
vehicle.
The Examiner finds that Votsmeier discloses, inter alia, collecting
data on an exhaust gas regeneration capability and initiating a regeneration
process for a vehicle. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Votsmeier ¶¶ 19–27 and 37–
43). The Examiner finds that, although Votsmeier does not disclose the
claimed second vehicle, Wagner discloses “an exhaust treatment device [that
initiates] a regeneration process for a second vehicle that is different than the
first vehicle.” Id. at 8 (citing Wagner ¶¶ 58–65). Thus, the Examiner
concedes that Votsmeier does not disclose making regeneration capabilities
for a second vehicle based on data collected for a first vehicle, but this
concept is taught by Wagner. The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to “combine the teachings of Sujan with [Votsmeier’s system] to
activate multiple regeneration cycles at the same time.” Id. (citing Wagner
¶¶ 60). We assume that the Examiner’s reference to Sujan is meant to refer
to Wagner.
Appellant argues that Votsmeier and Wagner do not disclose the
second vehicle recited in claim 8. Appeal Br. 17. We disagree with this
argument, because Wagner indeed discloses first and second vehicles
needing regeneration. See Wagner ¶ 58 (“[C]ontrol unit 202 of the shore
station 200 is shown in the process of controlling the regenerations of
exhaust treatment devices 20 provided on first and second vehicles 300 and
302” that “include bulkheads 304 for facilitating connecting the regeneration
cords 220, 222 to the exhaust treatment devices 20 of the vehicles 300,
302.”).
Appeal 2021-001893
Application 14/893,108

7
Appellant also argues that Wagner teaches a shore station for
regenerating particle filters “independently of whether a vehicle is operated
in manner . . . suitable for performing a regeneration process, such that
Wagner need not determine a time period “statistically suitable for”
regenerating a vehicle approaching its shore station. Id. at 17–18 (citing
Wagner ¶¶ 58–65). This contention is not persuasive of Examiner error,
because the Examiner finds the regeneration capability determination in
Votsmeier, not Wagner.
Appellant further argues that “Votsmeier and Wagner disclose
incompatible systems,” because Votsmeier’s system regenerates a vehicle
component while the vehicle is travelling, but Wagner requires the vehicle to
remain stationary at its shore station in the Wagner system. Id. at 18. This
attorney argument is not, itself, indicative of Examiner error, and it is not
readily discernable why stationary and moving vehicle systems are
incompatible.
Appellant lastly argues that “[t]here is no rationale for combining
Votsmeier and Wagner apart from the [Examiner’s] conclusory statement
that ‘Both Votsmeier and Wagner are directed to identifying when to initiate
a regeneration cycle and’” and it would have been obvious to combine
Votsmeier and Wagner “to activate multiple regeneration systems at the
same time.” Id. (citing Wagner ¶ 60 (“[T]he heating cycle of the second
exhaust treatment device can overlap in time with the cooling cycle of the
first exhaust treatment device.”)). Because the cited paragraph of Wagner
indeed addresses the benefit of activating multiple regeneration systems at
the same time, we fail to discern that the Examiner’s reasoning lacks a
Appeal 2021-001893
Application 14/893,108

8
rational basis. This reasoning comes directly from the disclosure of Wagner.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 8.
Rejection V – Claims 9 and 10
Like independent claims 1 and 11–13, independent claim 9 recites
“determining an exhaust gas regeneration capability of the vehicle engine
. . . by adding data from a plurality of work days to each other from at least
one of the following: exhaust gas temperature, exhaust gas mass flow,
engine power, engine load, and engine torque.” Claim 10 depends from
claim 9. The Examiner finds this teaching in Votsmeier. For the reasons
explained above, we are not persuaded that Votsmeier makes such a
disclosure. We, therefore, do not sustain Rejection V.
CONCLUSION
Rejections I–IV and VI are sustained, and Rejection V is not
sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6,
11–13
103 Votsmeier, Ramberg,
Santhanam
1, 2, 4, 6,
11–13
3 103 Votsmeier, Ramberg,
Santhanam, Kim
3
5 103 Votsmeier, Ramberg,
Santhanam,
Schumacher
5
8 103 Votsmeier, Wagner,
Santhanam
8
Appeal 2021-001893
Application 14/893,108

9
9, 10 103 Votsmeier, Renneke,
Chang, Santhanam
9, 10
16 103 Votsmeier, Ramberg,
Santhanam, Dea
16
Overall
Outcome
8 1–6, 9–13,
16

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART