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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on 02/27/2026.
Claims 6-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 6-11 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejections, in light of applicant’s arguments the 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that mapping of Li and Bowling. Applicant argues that the arts do not teach transmitting the ethanol data to both an engine and generator control unit. Bowling explicitly teaches gathering ethanol data and transmitting that data to the ECU to alter control to optimize performance in light of the ethanol content. Li teaches sending sensor data to both the ECU and MCU to optimize performance between the two system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to share the ethanol data to both the ECU and MCU when incorporating the teachings of Bowling to Li since Li teaches sending its data to both systems. This would be an obvious modification since it is applying a known solution to achieve a predictable result. Applicant also argues Bowling’s “optional” sensor 18 does not disclose coordination to both an ECU and MCU. Applicant appears to be attacking Bowling individually when the rejection as explained supra is a combination of the teachings of both Li and Bowling. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant additionally argues Li does not cure the deficiencies of Bowling. Applicant again appears to attack the reference individually when the rejection is made as a combination as explained supra. Applicant additionally argues the motivation to combine the references of Li and Bowling. Bowling provides a means of allowing an additional fuel to be used while being able to determine that fuel and adjust the combustion to maximize efficiency. One would be motivated to apply this known ability to the multi-engine hybrid setup of Li to allow for increased fuel flexibility while maintaining maximum efficiency. Therefore the rejection are maintained.
Applicant additionally provides optional amendments. The proposed amendment to claim 9 is not needed in light of the 112 rejections being withdrawn. The proposed amendment to claim 6 appears to raise 112a issues since the specification does not disclose adjusting “current, voltage, torque, or power based on the sensing signals” as proposed. The examiner reminds the applicant that any amendments need to have a basis in the originally filed specification. Any proposed amendments would need to be formally submitted to be considered.
PRO SE
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
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.
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(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0158374), herein Li in view of Bowling et. al. (US 2011/0218726), herein Bowling.
Regarding claim 6:
Li teaches:
An apparatus (A power system of a series hybrid vehicle [abstract]) for an ethanol agnostic (the fuel supplied by the fuel source may be one of liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, synthetic oil, methanol, ethanol, esterified vegetable oil or dimethyl ether, or a combination thereof. In one embodiment, the fuel is liquefied natural gas. [0016]) range extender module (fig. 1, APU 20) comprising one engine (fig. 2, engine 21), one generator (fig. 2, generator 24) and [one ethanol] sensor [on the fuel line];
wherein the [ethanol] sensor transmits a sensing signal to both an engine ECU (the control system may comprise a power controller which may be configured to control the operations of the engine, the clutch and the generator in each auxiliary power unit [0022]) and a generator MCU (the control system may comprise a power controller which may be configured to control the operations of the engine, the clutch and the generator in each auxiliary power unit [0022]) so that engine and generator can be commanded to work together in an efficient manner (each auxiliary power unit 20 may further comprise a clutch 22 which is arranged in a transmission path of mechanical energy from the engine 21 to the generator 24, so that the mechanical energy transmission path from the engine 21 to the generator 24 can be smoothly connected or disconnected under control of the control system 60. This may effectively solve large impact issues upon start of the engine and reliably and efficiently control frequent start and stop of the engine [0024]; the control system 60 may further comprise an excitation circuit 63, which is configured to perform power amplification to the pulse width modulation signal outputted by the power controller 61 to control the generator 24 and output the pulse width modulation signal with an amplified power to an exciter of the generator 24. In particular, as described above, the rectifier 26 may be an uncontrollable rectifying bridge device. Although other suitable rectifier may be applied here, the uncontrollable rectifying bridge device 26 has a higher rectifying efficiency, which is very advantageous in the power system of the present disclosure and may, to a certain degree, remedy the energy conversion efficiency of the series hybrid system [0046]),
Bowling also teaches:
An apparatus for an ethanol agnostic (These fuels include the 10% ethanol/90% gasoline mix now commonly sold at most filling stations, and an 85% ethanol mix (E85) that is also becoming popular. [0009]) range extender module (fig. 1, engine 6)
Jones does not explicitly teach, however Bowling teaches:
and one ethanol sensor on the fuel line (molecular composition information of the combustion fuel may be input to the UEGO sensor controller 10 as an electrical signal from a sensor 18. The sensor 18 may be, for example but not limited to, a Flex-Fuel sensor, a humidity sensor, or other engine sensor. [0054]);
wherein the ethanol sensor transmits the sensing signal to both an engine ECU (the fuel composition is first determined (S300). The fuel composition may be determined either from fixed inputs, which could be constant and hence only a one time calculation would be needed, or from sensor read backs from, for example but not limited to, flex-fuel sensors, or water injectors, or nitrous oxide injectors, that provide the percentage composition of the fuel mixture. The UEGO sensor controller 10 waits for the ECU 14 to transmit a signal instructing the UEGO sensor controller 10 to begin calculation of the AFR(S310-N). The signal may be sent because fuel injection is needed or it may be sent at a periodic rate independent of engine cylinder events. Upon receiving the calculate signal from the ECU 14 (S310-Y), the UEGO sensor controller 10 obtains UEGO sensor pump current 25 (S320). In the background, the UEGO sensor pump current 25 is continuously adjusted by the UEGO sensor controller 10, and the UEGO sensor pump current 25 value is read by the UEGO sensor controller 10 at this time. The equations described above are then solved for the AFR and lambda values (S330). The AFR and lambda values thus obtained are then transmitted to the ECU 14 for correction of the fuel mass on the next scheduled injection [0091]; The air flow and fuel injection calculations are performed by an ECU 14 based on a known flow rate of fuel injector 5. The air-fuel charge is then combusted in the engine cylinders 6 and exhausted into the exhaust manifold 7. The molecular composition of the exhaust gas 8 is measured by a UEGO sensor 20 in conjunction with a wideband UEGO sensor controller 10. [0052]; Alternatively of additionally, molecular composition information of the combustion fuel may be input to the UEGO sensor controller 10 as an electrical signal from a sensor 18. The sensor 18 may be, for example but not limited to, a Flex-Fuel sensor, a humidity sensor, or other engine sensor [0054]; examiner notes that the ECU is not simply adjusting based exclusively on the exhaust sensor but also the fuel line sensor.) [and a generator MCU], so that engine and [generator] can be commanded to work together in an efficient manner (A WB oxygen sensor, also known as a universal exhaust gas oxygen (UEGO) sensor, provides a measure of the degree of richness and leanness of the air/fuel ratio. This type of WB sensor provides an increased sensor signal bandwidth to the ECU in order to maintain stoichiometric operation and optimum catalyst efficiency [0008])
while the ethanol sensor signal can be sent to other vehicular ECUs as needed (molecular composition information of the combustion fuel may be input to the UEGO sensor controller 10 as an electrical signal from a sensor 18. The sensor 18 may be, for example but not limited to, a Flex-Fuel sensor, a humidity sensor, or other engine sensor. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to include the teachings as taught by Bowling with a reasonable expectation of success. Bowling teaches “there is provided a method for determining air/fuel mass ratio based on current sensed from an engine exhaust gas oxygen sensor. The method may include calibrating sensitivity of a universal exhaust gas oxygen sensor to a plurality of gases; inputting to a universal exhaust gas oxygen sensor controller a molecular composition of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen which comprise a combustion fuel in use in the internal combustion engine; calculating with the universal exhaust gas oxygen sensor controller an air-to-fuel ratio by performing a chemical balance equation calculation based on the universal exhaust gas oxygen sensor sensitivity calibration and the input combustion fuel molecular composition; and transmitting the calculated air-to-fuel ratio to an engine control unit in real-time. [Bowling, 0021]]”. Both Li and Bowling are in the same field of endeavor of control of an engine of a vehicle.
Claim(s) 7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0158374), herein Li in view of Bowling et. al. (US 2011/0218726), herein Bowling in further view of Wang et. al. (US 6,746,584), herein Wang.
Regarding claim 7:
Li in view of Bowling teaches all the limitations of claim 6, upon which this claim is meant to be dependent.
Li further teaches:
An apparatus (A power system of a series hybrid vehicle [abstract]) for a range extended electric propulsion system as a system architecture comprising multiple range extender modules (at least two auxiliary power units [0015]) of Claim 6,
a power distributor (the power system may further comprise an AC grid-connection device which may convert the corresponding AC electrical energy outputted by the respective auxiliary power unit into corresponding alternating currents at the same voltage, the same frequency and the same phase with each other and output them to the common current bus. Alternatively, each auxiliary power unit may comprise a rectifier which may receive AC electrical energy from the generator of the corresponding auxiliary power unit and convert the AC electrical energy into direct current and output the direct current to the common current bus. [0018]), a battery system (The power battery may be a battery pack that includes a group of battery cells connected in series, which permits discharge or charge of AC or DC electrical energy [0025]), a traction motor (The traction motor may be an AC asynchronous motor which carries an inverter and a motor controller in itself. [0025]) and a transmission gearbox (a power train [0015]), which is connected with an axle and wheels to drive/operate a truck (transmit the mechanical energy to a power train of the vehicle so as to drive the vehicle to run. [0015]);
Bowling further teaches:
wherein engine, generator and vehicle systems can adapt the calibration parameters in real time (a system or determining an air-fuel ratio of an internal combustion engine in real-time [0032]; Once this is calibration is done, the method may be employed in real-time to calculate the AFR of arbitrary fuels and mixes of fuels without any further calibration [0063]) per the signal from the ethanol sensor (The molecular composition can also be provided in real time by, for example, a Flex-Fuel composition sensor which senses the proportion of mixed fuels [0095])
Li in view of Bowling does not explicitly teach, however Want teaches:
to meet the targets of both fuel efficiency and emission controls (Increased demand for improved fuel economy and emissions control has necessitated the development of oxygen sensors capable of quantifying the exhaust oxygen partial pressure over a wide range of air fuel mixtures in both fuel-rich and fuel-lean conditions [col 1, lines 62-66]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Bowling to include the teachings as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. Wang teaches “Due to the large difference in oxygen partial pressures between fuel rich and fuel lean exhaust conditions, the electromotive force changes sharply at the stoichiomnetric point, giving rise to the characteristic switching behavior of these sensors. Consequently, these potentiometric oxygen sensors indicate qualitatively whether the engine is operating fuel rich or fuel lean, without quantifying the actual air to fuel ratio of the exhaust mixture. Increased demand for improved fuel economy and emissions control has necessitated the development of oxygen sensors capable of quantifying the exhaust oxygen partial pressure over a wide range of air fuel mixtures in both fuel-rich and fuel-lean conditions [Wang, col 1, lines 55-66]”. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Wang to determine the optimal air to fuel ratio to maximize fuel efficiency and emission reduction with the teachings of using a fuel sensor capable of determining a fuel composition to determine the optimal air to fuel ratio for that specific composition. This is applying a known method to achieve an expected result. All of the arts are also in the same field of endeavor of engine control.
Regarding claim 10:
Li in view of Bowling and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is meant to be dependent.
Li further teaches:
wherein the engines can use one or more of natural gas (the fuel supplied by the fuel source may be one of liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, synthetic oil, methanol, ethanol, esterified vegetable oil or dimethyl ether, or a combination thereof [0016]), propane (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.), methanol (the fuel supplied by the fuel source may be one of liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, synthetic oil, methanol, ethanol, esterified vegetable oil or dimethyl ether, or a combination thereof [0016]), and hydrogen (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.) as alternatives, or can be a solid oxide fuel cell (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.), and/or a hydrogen fuel cell (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.) to accommodate more flexible fuels which can be identified as non-ethanol blends (the use of novel fuel sources and novel power systems are important channels for solving vehicle energy bottleneck and exhaust gas pollution. With respect to novel fuel sources, it has been proven in practice that the use of alternative fuel is cleaner than gasoline and diesel and is a feasible solution for solving energy crisis and pollution caused by emission [0005]).
Bowling further teaches:
wherein the engines can use one or more of … propane (A permanent change in fuel can also be made, for example from gasoline to propane or LPG [0051]) … to accommodate more flexible fuels which can be identified as non-ethanol blends (examiner notes propane as taught by Bowling is a non-ethanol blend).
Regarding claim 11:
Li in view of Bowling and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is meant to be dependent.
Li further teaches:
wherein the traction motor can be one or more of an electric axle (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.), a dual-motor based electric drive (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.), and any other electric drive that can serve commercial vehicles (The traction motor 40 may be an AC asynchronous motor (e.g., a three-phase AC asynchronous motor) which carries an inverter and a motor controller in itself. In some embodiments, other suitable motors could be used as the traction motor 40 based on, for example, the form of the current in the common current bus 70 and the requirements of driving the vehicle. [0047]) and provide required power and torque to the vehicle (such alternative fuels have lower energy density, and thus the engine using such fuels usually has a relatively narrower optimal working condition power section [0035])
Bowling further teaches:
according to the signal from the ethanol sensor (the fuel composition is first determined (S300). The fuel composition may be determined either from fixed inputs, which could be constant and hence only a one time calculation would be needed, or from sensor read backs from, for example but not limited to, flex-fuel sensors, or water injectors, or nitrous oxide injectors, that provide the percentage composition of the fuel mixture. The UEGO sensor controller 10 waits for the ECU 14 to transmit a signal instructing the UEGO sensor controller 10 to begin calculation of the AFR(S310-N). The signal may be sent because fuel injection is needed or it may be sent at a periodic rate independent of engine cylinder events. Upon receiving the calculate signal from the ECU 14 (S310-Y), the UEGO sensor controller 10 obtains UEGO sensor pump current 25 (S320). In the background, the UEGO sensor pump current 25 is continuously adjusted by the UEGO sensor controller 10, and the UEGO sensor pump current 25 value is read by the UEGO sensor controller 10 at this time. The equations described above are then solved for the AFR and lambda values (S330). The AFR and lambda values thus obtained are then transmitted to the ECU 14 for correction of the fuel mass on the next scheduled injection [0091]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0158374), herein Li in view of Bowling et. al. (US 2011/0218726), herein Bowling in further view of Mulye (CA 2870268), herein Mulye.
Regarding claim 8:
Li in view of Bowling teaches all the limitations of claim 6, upon which this claim is meant to be dependent.
Bowling further teaches:
wherein the engine further comprises can use a gasoline spark ignition engine (internal combustion engine [abstract])…
Li in view of Bowling does not explicitly tech, however Mulye teaches:
a gasoline compression ignition engine (The principles set forth herein can be used in both spark-ignition (SI) engines typically operating on gasoline (petrol), ethanol or natural gas, or on compression-ignition engines, which typically are diesel engines. [0003]) with the goal of running ethanol blends to the target performance by make optimal adjustment of ignition timing (In the case of spark ignition, the timing may be varied depending upon the fuel, air fuel ratio, and amount of liquid water being injected or any combination thereof [0093]), thermal management (providing liquid water injection and heat management features as described herein [0037]), and other control strategies (lean fuel mixtures permits the engine operation at much higher than conventional compression ratios without knock [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li in view of Bowling to include the teachings as taught by Mulye with a reasonable expectation of success. Mulye teaches “a system and method for operating a spark or compression-ignition engine at elevated compression ratios compared to conventional engines, using lean air fuel ratios and liquid water injection to control the temperature inside the cylinder during both the compression and power strokes. The higher compression allows for higher thermal efficiency in accordance with the Otto or compression ignition (diesel) ideal engine cycles, and also allows for reliable ignition of leaner fuel mixtures. The liquid water injection reduces the work during compression by reduction in pressure, controls knock and provides temperature control. The liquid water injection also reduces the need for external cooling leading to less heat loss to the radiator and thus higher efficiency. The combination of liquid water injection and other heat management features, including using very lean air/fuel mixtures, can eliminate totally or substantially reduce the need for a radiator (i.e., a smaller radiator can be employed) than conventional engines, and have substantially lower heat losses to the environment. Engines described herein therefore produce much higher thermal efficiency compared to conventional engines, as well as lower emissions. [Mulye, 0017]”. Both Li, Bowling and Mulye are in the same field of endeavor of control of an engine of a vehicle.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0158374), herein Li in view of Bowling et. al. (US 2011/0218726), herein Bowling in further view of Salvi (US 2021/0123389), herein Salvi.
Regarding claim 9:
Li in view of Bowling teaches all the limitations of claim 6, upon which this claim is meant to be dependent.
Li further teaches:
wherein the engines can accommodate E0,E10, E15, and/or E85 as fuel mixtures (Furthermore, the fuel supplied by the fuel source may be one of liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, synthetic oil, methanol, ethanol, [0016]) so that genset can generate electricity in a more efficient manner to meet the vehicle demands (during travel of the vehicle, by independently starting and/or stopping a certain or certain number of auxiliary power units 20, the engine of each auxiliary power unit 20 is enabled as much as possible to work in an optimal working condition power section, to meet the power requirement of the vehicle, and effectively remedy the problem of lower energy density of the alternative fuels by reducing fuel consumption of per unit mileage [0036]).
Li in view of Bowling does not explicitly tech, however Salvi teaches:
wherein the engine can be one of a micro gas turbine (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.), a free-piston linear generator (FPLG) (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.), a Stirling engine (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.), a rotary piston cylinder engine (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.), an opposed piston engine (An opposed-piston engine is an internal-combustion engine characterized by an arrangement of two pistons disposed in the bore of a single cylinder for reciprocating movement in opposing directions along the longitudinal axis of the cylinder's bore.), a Wankel engine (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.), or a wave disk engine (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, which does not require it to be mapped.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li in view of Bowling to include the teachings as taught by Salvi with a reasonable expectation of success. Salvi teaches “a particular aspect of the invention as practiced in an opposed-piston engine with two independently-rotating crankshafts, as two pistons move coaxially in a cylinder of the engine, toward and away from each other during a cycle of engine operation, respective locations of the pistons may be varied through provision of angular position feedback separately to a first crankshaft of the two crankshafts which is operatively coupled to a first piston of the two pistons and/or to a second crankshaft of the two crankshafts which is operatively coupled to a second piston of the two pistons. Variation of the piston locations through feedback control of crankshaft rotation may be beneficially applied to enable control of performance factors of the engine. The controlled performance factor may comprise one of a compression ratio or a scavenging rate. [Salvi, 0009]]”. Both Jones and Salvi are in the same field of endeavor of control of an engine of a vehicle.
ConclusionAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665