Ex Parte Pekar et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 2019

13290025 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/290,025 11/04/2011 137488 7590 Garrett/Seager Patent Services Legal Department 2525 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504 03/28/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jaroslav Pekar 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. H0031430-1264.l 108101 4047 EXAMINER MO,XIAOEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2019 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): sherry. vallabh@garrettmotion.com Honeywell. USPTO@STWiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAROSLA V PEKAR and DANIEL P ACHNER Appeal2018-004872 Application 13/290,025 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CAL VE, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2018-004872 Application 13/290,025 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 depend from claim 1, 8, or 14. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. An engine and aftertreatment system comprising: an engme; an aftertreatment mechanism connected to the engine; and a controller connected to the engine and the aftertreatment mechanism; and wherein: the controller comprises an off-line portion having an optimization problem that computes maps, the computed maps prescribing optimal setpoints and constraints for measured variables from sensors and positions of engine actuators for a substantially all operating points of the engine to optimize operation of the engine, where the maps are parameterized by variables of the engine and the aftertreatment mechanism; and the maps are a basis incorporated in the optimization problem for optimizing performance of the engine and the aftertreatment mechanism integrated as one system and the controller is configured to set positions of the engine actuators to optimize operation of the engine by realizing the engine actuator optimal set points from the parameterized maps computed offline for the engine based on operating points of the engine. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(b) as being anticipated by Frazier (US 2007/0245714 Al, published Oct. 25, 2007). 2 Appeal2018-004872 Application 13/290,025 2. Claims 14--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Frazier and Kotwicki (US 6,502,550 Bl, issued Jan. 7, 2003). OPINION Although the Final Office Action mailed May 4, 2017 is the subject of the instant appeal, Appellants acknowledge that it "inadvertently filed the Appeal Brief dated October 31, 2017, addressing the rejections of a previous Final Office Action, dated June 18, 2015." Reply Br. 2. Appellants do not contend that the rejections presented in the June 18, 2015 Final Office Action are the same as those in the May 4, 2017 Final Office Action. 1,2 Appellants explain that "[i]n this Reply Brief, Appellant[s] will address the rejections from the current Final Office Action, dated May 4, 2017." Reply Br. 2. Our rules generally prohibit new argument in the Reply Brief. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.4I(b)(2). Because the Appeal Brief fails to address the Final Office Action mailed October 31, 2017, which includes the currently pending rejections, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in those rejections. We do not consider the new arguments raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. 1 Appellant references similarities between an Office Action mailed October 14, 2016 and the May 4, 2017 Final Office Action. Reply Br. 2. 2 Although one of the rejections presented in the June 18, 2015 Final Office Action is based on anticipation by Frazier, that reject does not rely on the same evidence (i.e., the same portions of Frazier) as the rejection before us. 3 Appeal2018-004872 Application 13/290,025 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4