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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention II claims 8-15 in the reply filed on 6/3/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that 1.) “adjusting … in response to an ignition time” has not been shown to be mechanical and 2.) claims 1-4 recite overlap of crank angle control.
1.) This is not found persuasive because a person having ordinary skill in the art of engine control knows mechanical control of engines has long predating electronic computer control. For example, Pippig US 2,093,339 published 1937 teaches pg 2 col 2 ll 20-56 “The advanced injection period used in the test case during operation at the full speed Is termed A in Fig. 9 and extended from 7° before dead top center to about 5° beyond dead top center; the retarded injection R for operation at low speed extended over approximately 4°, and terminated at the dead top center. The timing of the injection was suitably connected with the timing of the Ignition spark so that the latter, took place simultaneously with b0 the beginning of the injection. In other words the mechanical controls used In connection with a Diesel engine for the injection of the fuel and the control of the distributor head as used In Gasoline engines were aggregated to facilitate a common control.”
2.) This is not found persuasive as claim 8 requires control as a function of crank angle and claims 1-3 are devoid of limitation “crank angle.” Claim 4 does recite “crank angle”, however examiner finds the control is not a function of crank angle and the claim merely recites converting the times to crank angle as post processing activity and the method does not positively recite control as a function of crank angle.
Further examiner finds search and examination burden has been established.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner notes priority document is devoid of instant figs 4-5 pertaining to multi fuel engine. Therefore examiner finds no foreign priority or support is given to any claims directed to multi fuel engine. With respect to examined claims 8-15, claim 10, is directed towards multi-fuel engines and does not perfect foreign priority and will be given priority to US filing date 3/1/23. Examiner notes withdrawn claims 1-7 and 16-20 not yet analyzed for priority as pertains to multi fuel.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities, e.g.:
pg 12 ll 4-5 recites “At 214, the method may include determining if the length of the period is less than o an ignition angle. ” It is not known what “o an ignition angle” means or is.
Pg 12 l 20 “is now closes” is idiomatic.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Re 8, Claim 8 last two lines recites “length of period being withing a threshold margin of the ignition time.” This limitation is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. A period of time and an ignition time are not the same units, and even if they were would not have a relative basis for comparison. The statement is nonsensical and most likely a translation error. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined and are indefinite. For the purposes of examining the limitation will be taken as “in response to injection ending within, a threshold margin of the ignition time or after ignition time” consistent with instant US PGPub para 40.
In Re 11, “length of period ending” is nonsensical, see in re 1 above. For the purposes of examining the limitation will be taken as “in response to injection ending by at least the threshold margin prior to the ignition time” consistent with instant US PGPub para 41.
Dependent claims 9-15 rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
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) 8-11,13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grajkowski US 6,736,107.
In Re 8, Grajkowski teaches:
8. (Original) A system, comprising:
an engine comprising at least one combustion chamber (title);
a fuel injector positioned to supply fuel to the at least one combustion chamber (fig 1); and a controller (fig 1) with computer-readable instructions stored on memory thereof that cause the controller to:
determine an injection start point (60,70,SOF) and stop point (EOF) in time as a function of crank angle (figs 2-3);
determine a length of period (64,74) between a close of the fuel injector and a start of an ignition time as a function of crank angle; and
adjust the injection start point and stop point in response to the length of period being within a threshold margin of the ignition time (see 35 USC 112b rejection above with claim construction in that limitation taken as “in response to injection ending within, a threshold margin of the ignition time or after ignition time”. Grajkowski teaches col 6 ll 10-25 FAD fuel air delay determines the time at which EOF occurs. Note threshold margin as FAD, note adjustment of EOF based on FAD before spark 88)(at least all figures and columns).
9. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions further enable the controller to adjust a combustion mixture (adjusting the injector timing is adjustment of combustion mixture temporally further including amount and stratification of charge col 6) in response to the injection start point and stop point being adjusted to a threshold advanced position (EOF is advanced before ignition).
10. (Original) The system of claim 9, wherein the combustion mixture is adjusted to comprise one or more of (Markush) a different amount exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), a different amount of gaseous fuel, a different amount of liquid fuel (“length of the fuel injection event 80 is not limiting” col 6 ll 1-12), and a different amount of boost.
11. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions cause the controller to maintain the injection start point and stop point in response to the length of period ending by at least the threshold margin prior to the ignition time (col 6 once the injection advanced before ignition it is maintained)(see 35 USC 112b rejection above).
13. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the threshold margin is a fixed value (15 degrees plus FAD per fig 3).
14. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the threshold margin is a dynamic value based on one or more of (Markush) a gaseous fuel pressure, a fuel injection amount, an ignition timing ( “some variability in the precise numbers described above are within the scope of the present invention.” Col 5 ll 35-60), an engine load, an age of the fuel injector, and an air/fuel ratio.
15. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions enable the controller to adjust the injection start point and stop point to an earlier crank angle (advanced), wherein the stop point occurs prior to the ignition time by at least the threshold margin (FAD).
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.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grajkowski US 6,736,107 in view of Kobayashi US 7,320,302.
In Re 12, Grajkowski teaches the fuel injector, see in re 1 above.
Grajkowski does not teach however Kobayashi teaches the fuel injector is a gaseous fuel injector (col 24 ll 9-67) configured to inject one or more of (Markush) hydrogen (“hydrogen gas”), compressed natural gas (CNG), ammonia, and syn-gas. Kobayashi further teaches gaseous fuel prevents knocking col 24 ll 60-67. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to replace Grajkowski’s liquid fuel injector with Kobayashi’s gaseous fuel injector to prevent knocking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747