Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2025-08-21)

CLAIMS:
AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS

Please amend the claims as follows:

1\. (currently amended) A method for operating a motor vehicle with an internal combustion engine comprising a combustion engine and an exhaust line with an exhaust aftertreatment system, the method comprising:determining at least one environmental emission of \[\[anijat least one exhaust component contained in \[\[the\]\] exhaust gas generated by the combustion engine; \[\[and\]\] limiting(\[,\]\] operation of the internal combustion engine with respect to a deliverable power when \[\[if\]\] a limitation threshold value for the at least one environmental emission of the at least one exhaust component po is exceeded r
 triggerinq a warning message and/or adapting the operation of the internal combustion engine in a power-neutral manner, such that the at least one environmental emission is reduced, when a warning threshold value for the at least one environmental emission of the at least one exhaust component is exceeded,wherein the warning threshold value is lower than the limitation threshold value th netr .

2.(currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the limitation threshold value is between 50% and 99% of an emission limit value defined for the at least one exhaust component.
3\. (currently amended) The method according to claim \[\[1 wherein the at least one environmental emission of the exhaust component, the limitation threshold value, \[\[and\]\] the warning threshold value ande- the emission limit value are related to a travel distance.SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.160.22

4\. (original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the warning threshold value is between 90% and 99% of the limitation threshold value.

5\. (original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the limitation threshold value and/or the warning threshold value increase/increases at least in sections with an increasing travel distance.

6\. (currently amended) The method according to claim \[\[5\]\]1, wherein the limitation threshold value and/or the warning threshold value increase with an increasing travel distance during a first travel distance section and remain constant during a second travel distance section.

7\. (original) The method according to claim 6, wherein the warning threshold value increases more greatly than the limitation threshold value during the first travel distance

section.

8\. (currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one exhaust component includes at least one of the following:
HG,CO, NOX, particles, NH3, N20, and CH20.

9\. (currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one environmental emission of the at least one exhaust component is measured and/or modeled.

10\. (currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one environmental emission is determined as an emission integral over \[\[the\]\]a total distance driven and/or as an emission integral over a partial distance driven.

11.(new) The method according to claim 1, wherein the limitation threshold value and the warning threshold value increase with an increasing travel distance during a first travel distance section and remain constant during a second travel distance section.

12\. (new) The method according to claim 11, wherein the limitation threshold value is between 50% and 99% of an emission limit value defined for the at least one exhaust component, and wherein the emission limit value remains constant through both the first travel distance section and the second travel distance section.

13\. (new) The method according to claim 11, wherein the warning threshold value increases more greatly than the limitation threshold value during the first travel distance section.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a motor vehicle operation control for an internal combustion engine, wherein the system ascertains emissions limits, limits engine power when the threshold is exceeded, and wherein there is a warning threshold value lower than the limitation threshold which causes an environmental emission to be reduced, either through a warning message or adapting the engine operation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKSFavorable reconsideration and allowance of the subject application are respectfully requested. Claims 1-13 are pending in the present application, with claim 1 being independent and claims 11-13 being newly added. Claims 11-13 are patentable at least by virtue of their dependency and are supported by, e.g., Fig. 3 of the present Application.No new matter has been added.Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), as being indefinite. This rejection is respectfully traversed.Applicant hereby amends claim 3 in a manner believed to address the rejection.Applicant has also amended various other claims to address any antecedent basis and/or clarity issues found therein.Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection are respectfully requested.Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §102, as being anticipated by Willimowski et al. (US 2018/0154897). These rejections are respectfully traversed insofar as they pertain to the presently pending claims.Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentable over the cited reference. For example, claim 1 recites, "limiting operation of the internal combustion engine with respect to a deliverable power when a limitation threshold value for the at least one environmental emission of the at least one exhaust component is exceeded; and triggering a warning message and/or adapting the operation of the internal combustion engine in a power- neutral manner, such that the at least one environmental emission is reduced, when a warning threshold value for the at least one environmental emission of the at least one exhaust component is exceeded, wherein the warning threshold value is lower than the limitation threshold value." As recited in claim 1, there are two different thresholds, i.e., a warning threshold value and a limitation threshold value. Furthermore, different actions are taken depending upon which of the two threshold values is exceeded.On the other hand, in Willimowski, there is only one threshold value, i.e., the predetermined threshold value, In Willimowski, nitrous oxide emissions are monitored and if they exceed the predetermined threshold value or are expected to exceed the predetermined threshold value, then actions are taken (see paras. [0043] and [0047]- [0054]). Applicant submits, however, that such actions to be taken are the same whether the threshold is actually exceeded or expected to be exceeded. In particular, para. [0047] specifically states that, "an action is taken directly in response to the threshold being exceeded or in response to the threshold being predicted to be exceeded." Paragraphs [0048]-[0053] of Willimowski then discuss the various actions that can be taken.In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that Willimowski fails to disclose the claimed warning threshold value, which is lower than the claimed limitation threshold value, and that power neutral operation is adapted and/or warning messages are triggered when the warning threshold value is exceeded, whereas operation of the engine with respect to deliverable power is limited when the limitation threshold value is exceeded (i.e., different actions based on which threshold value is exceeded).At least based on the foregoing, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentable over the cited reference and claims 3, 8 and 9 are patentable at least by virtue of their dependency.With further regard to claim 3, such claim recites that the limitation threshold value and the warning threshold value are related to a travel distance.As discussed above, Willimowski fails to disclose an actual warning threshold value. Furthermore, with regard to the predetermined threshold value (alleged limitation threshold value) of Willimowski, Applicant submits that such value is not related to a travel distance. In particular, in the rejection of claim 3, the Examiner cites to paras. [0033]- [0035] and [0043] of Willimowski as teaching the claimed feature. Applicant submits, however, that state variables, such as distance traveled (para. [0035]), can be ascertained in order to determine the driving style. The driving style is then used to determine the current nitrous oxide emissions using a nitrous oxide characteristics map (see paras. [0020]-[0042]). Once these nitrous oxide emissions are determined, such emissions are compared to the predetermined threshold value (see para. [0043]).Paragraph [0043] also discloses that the predetermined threshold value is established using the nitrous oxide characteristic map as a function of the current engine speed and mean pressure of the vehicle. Thus, there is no disclosure that the predetermined threshold value of Willimowski is related to a travel distance, as required by claim 3. As such, Applicant submits that claim 3 is patentable for at least this additional reason.Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections are respectfully requested.Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. §103, as being unpatentable over Willimowski. Also, the Examiner rejected claims 5-7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103, as being unpatentable over Willimowski in view of Fev. These rejections are respectfully traversed insofar as they pertain to the presently pending claims.With regard to claims 2 and 4, Applicant submits that such claims are patentable at least by virtue of their dependency. Furthermore, as discussed above, Willimowski fails to disclose the claimed warning threshold value of claim 4.Turning to claims 5-7 and 10, Applicant submits that since Fev fails to cure the deficient teachings of Willimowski, at least in regard to claim 1, such claims are patentable at least by virtue of their dependency. In particular, similar to Willimowski, Fev merely teaches to use a limitation threshold value, as opposed to a limitation threshold value and a warning threshold value. In Fig. 4 of Fev, the EG line (mislabeled as "EC" in para.[0045]) represents the statutory emission limit (i.e., the emission limit value of Applicant's claims 2 and 3). While Fig. 4 of Fev also shows two EZ lines, i.e., EZ1 and EZ2, these two lines do not represent the two threshold values of claim 1, but rather merely depict target emission limit curves under two different driving states (see para. [0048]). As such, Fev fails to cure the deficient teachings of Willimowski at least with regard to claim 1.With specific regard to claim 6, such claim recites, "wherein the limitation threshold value and/or the warning threshold value increase with an increasing travel distance during a first travel distance section and remain constant during a second travel distance section." As set forth above, the claimed limitation threshold value and/or the warning threshold value increase during a first travel distance section, but remain constant during the second travel distance section. In Fig. 4 of Fev, it is shown that both the curve EZ1 and the curve EZ2 increase up to the distance sg, but there is no disclosure as to the curves then remaining constant during the distance following distance sg (i.e., during a second travel distance section). As such, claim 6 is deemed patentable for at least this additional reason.With further regard to claim 7, such claim recites, "wherein the warning threshold value increases more greatly than the limitation threshold value during the first travel distance section." As discussed above, Fev fails to disclose both a warning threshold value and a limitation threshold value. As such, the reference likewise fails to teach that the warning threshold value increases more greatly than the limitation threshold value during the first travel distance section. Accordingly, claim 7 is deemed patentable for at least this additional reason.Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections are respectfully requested.CONCLUSIONApplicants have made a diligent effort to place the claims in condition for allowance. However, should there remain unresolved issues that require adverse action, it is respectfully requested that the Examiner telephone Martin R. Geissler, Applicants' Attorney at 1.703.621.7140 so that such issues may be resolved as expeditiously as possible.For these reasons, and in view of the above amendments, this application is now considered to be in condition for allowance and such action is earnestly solicited.If necessary, the Commissioner is hereby authorized in this, concurrent, and future replies, to charge payment or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account No. 50-3828 for any additional fees required under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.16 or 1.17; particularly, extension of time fees.Date: April 28, 2025 Respectfully Submitted, Martin R Geissler Attorne /Agent for Applic nt(s) Reg. No. 51011 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.125 S. Royal St Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel. 1.703.621.7140 Enclosure: