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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 02/26/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16 have been amended; claim 13 has been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to claim 1 have been mostly withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claim. A remaining claim objection neither addressed by amendment nor argument has been updated in order to address amendments to the claims and maintained.
The previous rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been partially withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims and the cancellation of claim 13. Remaining claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) neither addressed by amendment nor argument have been updated in order to address amendments to the claims and maintained.
The previous rejections of claims 1-12 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been adapted, in light of the amendments to claim 1 and upon further consideration of the claims. The previous rejections of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn, and in light of the cancellation of claim 13.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, each of: “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valves as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” in the last four lines of claim 1; and “controlling the EGR valve to adjust a flow rate of gases flowing through the bypass duct on the basis of the ratio of the mass of the gas mixture flowing from the low pressure circuit into said intake manifold with respect to said total mass of the gas mixture flowing through the intake manifold and the calculated mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” in lines 17-21 of claim 2, must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. Specifically, the drawings fail to show inclusion of each of “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valves as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” and “controlling the EGR valve to adjust a flow rate of gases flowing through the bypass duct on the basis of the ratio of the mass of the gas mixture flowing from the low pressure circuit into said intake manifold with respect to said total mass of the gas mixture flowing through the intake manifold and the calculated mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders.” It is additionally noted that Applicant’s original specification fails to disclose each of “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valves as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” and “controlling the EGR valve to adjust a flow rate of gases flowing through the bypass duct on the basis of the ratio of the mass of the gas mixture flowing from the low pressure circuit into said intake manifold with respect to said total mass of the gas mixture flowing through the intake manifold and the calculated mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “at least one of the respective exhaust valve” in line 7, which should be amended to instead recite --the at least one respective exhaust valve-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “at least one respective exhaust valve” in line 6 of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “at said least one respective intake valve” in line 15, which should be amended to instead recite --[[at]] said at least one respective intake valve-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “at least one respective intake valve” in lines 4-5 of the claim.
Claim 1 should be amended to remove “and” from the end of line 18 in view of recitation of “and” at the end of the fifth-to-last line of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the at least one of the respective exhaust valves” in lines 42-43, which should be amended to instead recite --the at least one valve-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “at least one respective exhaust valve” in line 6 of the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the steps of” in line 2, which appears to be a misstating of --the step of--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as amended, recites “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valves as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” in the last four lines of the claim. The instant application was filed on 07/06/2023 as a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/674,211, and, upon further consideration, it is noted that the original disclosure of the parent application fails to provide sufficient written description support for inclusion of “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valves as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” in the claim. For example, while Applicant’s original specification discloses “The intake valves 5 and/or the exhaust valves 7 are controlled with a VVT (variable valve timing) device, which hydraulically acts upon the shaft operating the intake valves 5 and or the exhaust valves 7, respectively, changing the inclination thereof relative to a drive shaft. In particular, the position of each exhaust valve 7 is directly controlled by a cam shaft 13, which receives the motion of the drive shaft 10; similarly, the position of each intake valve 5 is directly controlled by a cam shaft 14, which receives the motion of the drive shaft 10.” (see lines 3-12 of page 5 of the specification filed 11/05/2019 for the parent application), and while Applicant’s original specification discloses calculating a mass of gases (OFF) produced by a combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside a cylinder (see line 3 of page 23 – line 15 of page 24 of the specification filed 11/05/2019 for the parent application), there is no original written description support “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valves as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders,” and Applicant’s drawings fail to show such a feature. Therefore, upon further consideration, claim 1 includes “new matter” with respect to the original disclosure of the parent application, such that claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-12 and 14-17 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2-12 and 14-17 also include the “new matter” of claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 2, as amended, recites “controlling the EGR valve to adjust a flow rate of gases flowing through the bypass duct on the basis of the ratio of the mass of the gas mixture flowing from the low pressure circuit into said intake manifold with respect to said total mass of the gas mixture flowing through the intake manifold and the calculated mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” in lines 17-21. The instant application was filed on 07/06/2023 as a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/674,211, and, upon further consideration, it is noted that the original disclosure of the parent application fails to provide sufficient written description support for inclusion of “controlling the EGR valve to adjust a flow rate of gases flowing through the bypass duct on the basis of the ratio of the mass of the gas mixture flowing from the low pressure circuit into said intake manifold with respect to said total mass of the gas mixture flowing through the intake manifold and the calculated mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” in the claim. For example, while Applicant’s original specification discloses “Along the bypass duct there is provided an EGR valve, which is designed to adjust the flow rate of the exhaust gases flowing through the bypass duct.” (see lines 13-15 of page 8 of the specification filed 11/05/2019 for the parent application), and while Applicant’s original specification discloses calculating a mass of gases (OFF) produced by a combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside a cylinder (see line 3 of page 23 – line 15 of page 24 of the specification filed 11/05/2019 for the parent application), there is no original written description support for “controlling the EGR valve to adjust a flow rate of gases flowing through the bypass duct on the basis of the ratio of the mass of the gas mixture flowing from the low pressure circuit into said intake manifold with respect to said total mass of the gas mixture flowing through the intake manifold and the calculated mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders,” and Applicant’s drawings fail to show such a feature. Therefore, upon further consideration, claim 2 includes “new matter” with respect to the original disclosure of the parent application, such that claim 2 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 9 recites “A*G represents a hydraulic permeability of an overlap” in line 7; however, the instant application was filed on 07/06/2023 as a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/674,211, and, upon further consideration, it is noted that the original disclosure of the parent application fails to provide sufficient written description support for inclusion of “A*G represents a hydraulic permeability of an overlap” in the claim. For example, lines 3-12 of page 5 and lines 10-117 of page 6 of the specification filed 11/05/2019 for the parent application differently discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
254
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
250
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In other words, Applicant’s original specification differently discloses that “A*G” represents a product of two functions, where a first function of the two functions is determined as a function of a speed of the internal combustion engine and a duration of an overlap phase comprised between a closing advance angle EVC of an exhaust valve and an opening advance angle IVO of an intake valve, and where a second function of the two functions is determined as a function of the speed of the internal combustion engine and a difference between a top dead center and a center of gravity of the overlap phase between the intake valve and the exhaust valve, and there is no original written description support “A*G represents a hydraulic permeability of an overlap,” and Applicant’s drawings fail to show such a feature. Therefore, upon further consideration, claim 9 includes “new matter” with respect to the original disclosure of the parent application, such that claim 9 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Evidence that claim 1 fails to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in the reply filed 02/26/2026. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant has stated “the subject matter of the method has been reduced to a particular practical application having a real-world use—in this case for a method to determine the mass (m) of air trapped in each cylinder of an internal combustion engine which is used to adjust the timing of the intake and exhaust valves to improve fuel economy, engine performance and reduce emissions” (see page 14 of the remarks), and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in claim 1 because claim 1, as amended, differently recites “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valves as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” in the last four lines of the claim.
Claims 2-12 and 14-17 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2-12 and 14-17 also include the indefinite subject matter of claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are 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.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites “determining, based on a filling model using measured and/or estimated physical quantities, a value for a first group of reference quantities which includes: a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of the at said least one respective intake valve” in lines 9-15, which contains multiple issues of indefiniteness:
First, “a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of the at said least one respective intake valve” in lines 11-15 define an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature (e.g., see: MPEP 2117). The Markush grouping of “a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of the at said least one respective intake valve” is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. Also, a proper Markush group is a closed group of alternatives (i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of,” rather than “comprising” or “including”) [e.g., see: MPEP 2173.05(h)_I], and the claimed Markush grouping is improperly defined as an open group by virtue of “which includes” in line 10. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use, while further defining the Markush grouping as a closed group of alternatives.
It is also unclear whether “determining […] a value for a first group of reference quantities which includes: a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of the at said least one respective intake valve” in lines 9-15 requires determination of a value of each of “a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of the at said least one respective intake valve,” OR whether “determining […] a value for a first group of reference quantities which includes: a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of the at said least one respective intake valve” differently requires determination of a value of one (or at least one) of “a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of the at said least one respective intake valve” OR whether “determining […] a value for a first group of reference quantities which includes: a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of the at said least one respective intake valve” differently does not require determination of a value of any of “a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of the at said least one respective intake valve.”
Claim 1, as amended, now refers to “said timing of the at least one respective intake and the at least one respective exhaust valve” (emphasis added) in the fourth-to-last line of the claim and previously introduces “a timing” in line 8 via “wherein the at least one respective intake valve and/or the at least one respective exhaust valve are controlled so as to change a timing thereof” (emphasis added) in lines 7-8. Firstly, it is unclear whether the “timing” referred to in the fourth-to-last line of claim 1 is intended to be the same as or different from the “timing” introduced in line 8 of the claim. In the former case, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “said timing of the at least one respective intake and the at least one respective exhaust valve” in view of “wherein the at least one respective intake valves and/or the at least one respective exhaust valves are controlled so as to change a timing thereof” alternatively referring to the “at least one respective intake valve” and the “at least one respective exhaust valve” in the alternative via “or” in “and/or” and in view of each of the “at least one respective intake valve” and the “at least one respective exhaust valve” having different sets of timings by virtue of referring to different valves having different functions in the context of an engine cycle of an internal combustion engine.
Claims 2-12 and 14-17 are dependent from claim 1, such that claims 2-12 and 14-17 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 2, as amended, now recites “calculating a quantity (REGR) which represents a ratio of a mass of a gas mixture flowing from the low pressure circuit into the intake duct with respect to a total mass of the gas mixture flowing through the intake manifold: REGR = MEGR_LP/MTOT MTOT represents a mass of the gas mixture flowing through the intake manifold; and MEGR_LP represents a mass of exhaust gas recirculated through the low-pressure circuit, which flows in the intake manifold” in lines 5-13, which contains numerous issues of indefiniteness. First, it is unclear what exactly is meant by inclusion of the equation in line 8 of the claim, and as described by lines 9-13 of the claim, in the context of claim 2, and it is unclear whether the colon at the end of line 7 of claim 2 is intended to require for the “calculating…” step of lines 5-7 of claim 2 to use the equation in line 8. Also, it is unclear whether the “low-pressure circuit” referred to in line 12 is intended to be the same as or different from the “low pressure circuit” previously introduced in line 6. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, as amended, also introduces “a mass of exhaust gas recirculated through said low-pressure circuit, which flows in the intake manifold” in lines 12-13; however, the claim previously introduces “a mass of an exhaust gas mixture flowing from a low-pressure circuit into the intake manifold” in lines 5-6, and it is unclear whether the “mass of exhaust gas recirculated through said low-pressure circuit, which flows in the intake manifold” in lines 12-13 is intended to be the same as or different from the “mass of an exhaust gas mixture flowing from a low-pressure circuit into the intake manifold” in lines 5-6, especially since there appears to be no proper basis in Applicant’s disclosure and claims for presenting lines 12-13 differently from lines 5-6. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, as amended, refers to “the exhaust” in each of line 6 and line 7. Claim 7 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 3; however, none of claims 1, 3, and 7 previously introduces “an exhaust,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by each instance “the exhaust” in line 6 and line 7 of claim 7. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 9, as amended, now recites “B represents the compression ratio” in line 8; however, claim 9 is dependent from claim 1, and neither of claims 1 and 9 previously introduces “B,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “B” in line 8 of claim 9. Additionally, neither of claims 1 and 9 previously introduces “a compression ratio,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the compression ratio” in line 8 of claim 9. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 10, as amended, now recites “a mass of air trapped in each one of the number of cylinders is a function of a number of multiplying coefficients, which take into account the angular extent of a difference relative to the reference values of at least the respective intake valve, the angular extent of a difference relative to the reference values of at least the respective exhaust valve and a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine” in lines 1-6; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “is a function of” in the context of this recitation. Also, claim 10 is dependent from claim 1, and neither claim previously introduces “reference values of said at least the respective intake valve” and “reference values of said at least one respective exhaust valve,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the reference values of said at least the respective intake valve” and “the reference values of said at least one respective exhaust valve” in claim 10. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 is dependent from claim 10, such that claim 11 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 10 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 10 is rejected.
Claim 14, as amended, introduces “at least one respective exhaust valve” in line 4. Claim 14 is dependent from claim 1; however, claim 1 previously introduces “at least one respective exhaust valve” in line 6, and it is unclear whether the “at least one respective exhaust valve” introduced in line 4 of claim 14 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one respective exhaust valve” previously introduced in line 6 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II).
In claim 1, “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valve” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” cannot be met during performing of the claimed method. Claim 3 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 3 recites “causing the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside the cylinder to be equal to zero, in case the entire flow rate of gases produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside the cylinder is directly directed towards the exhaust manifold during the overlap phase through the respective exhaust valve” in lines 2-6, which expressly sets forth an instance in which the condition “as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that neither of “calculating the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” and “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valve as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” would necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when at least the condition “the entire flow rate of gases produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside the cylinder is directly directed towards the exhaust manifold during the overlap phase through the respective exhaust valve” of claim 3 is met during performing of the claimed method. Therefore, each of “calculating the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” and “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valve as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, claim 3 is of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, by virtue of rendering each of “calculating the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” and “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valve as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” as contingent limitations via recitation of “causing the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside the cylinder to be equal to zero, in case the entire flow rate of gases produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside the cylinder is directly directed towards the exhaust manifold during the overlap phase through the respective exhaust valve.”
Claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 3, such that claims 7 and 8 also include the subject matter recited by claim 3 and therefore are also rejected for being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Claims 2-12 and 14-17 depend from claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites:
A method to determine a mass (m) of air trapped in each cylinder of an internal combustion engine; wherein the internal combustion engine comprises a number of cylinders, each connected to an intake manifold, from which each one of the number of cylinders receives fresh air through at least one respective intake valve, and to an exhaust manifold, into which each one of the number of cylinders introduces exhaust gases produced by combustion through at least one respective exhaust valve; and wherein the at least one respective intake valve and/or at least one respective exhaust valve are controlled so as to change a timing thereof;
the method comprising:
determining, based on a filling model using measured and/or estimated physical quantities, a value for a first group of reference quantities which includes: a pressure measured for an engine cycle inside the intake manifold; a speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine; a mass of gases produced by combustion in a previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; and a closing delay angle of said at least one respective intake valve;
determining, based on said filling mode, an actual inner volume (V) of each one of the number of cylinders as a function of the speed of rotation of the internal combustion engine and the closing delay angle of the at least one respective intake valve; and
determining the mass (m) of air trapped in each one of the number of cylinders as a function of the first group of reference quantities and the actual inner volume (V) of each one of the number of cylinders;
calculating the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders, as determined using the following equation: OFF = PEXH * VCC / (R * TEXH) – MEXH_SCAV where: OFF represents the mass of gases produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders; PEXH represents a pressure of a gas flow in the exhaust gas; TEXH represents a temperature of the gas flow in the exhaust gas; VCC represents a volume of a combustion chamber of each one of the number of cylinders; MEXH_SCAV represents a residual mass of exhaust gases present in the combustion chamber of each one of the number of cylinders and directed towards the exhaust manifold through the at least one respective exhaust valve; and R represents a constant of a mixture of fresh air and/or exhaust gases; and
adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valve as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute each of a “mental process” and a “mathematical process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, each instance of “determining…” and “calculating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments, where each instance of “determining…” and “calculating…” in the context of this claim also encompasses use of a mathematical relationship, such as performing one or more simple calculations. Accordingly, claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are the underlined portions provided above while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea.”
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II).
In claim 1, “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valve” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” cannot be met during performing of the claimed method. Claim 3 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 3 recites “causing the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside the cylinder to be equal to zero, in case the entire flow rate of gases produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside the cylinder is directly directed towards the exhaust manifold during the overlap phase through the respective exhaust valve” in lines 2-6, which expressly sets forth an instance in which the condition “as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that neither of “calculating the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” and “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valve as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” would necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when at least the condition “the entire flow rate of gases produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside the cylinder is directly directed towards the exhaust manifold during the overlap phase through the respective exhaust valve” of claim 3 is met during performing of the claimed method. Therefore, each of “calculating the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” and “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valve as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner further notes that Applicant’s specification lacks original written description support for “adjusting said timing of the at least one respective intake valve and the at least one respective exhaust valve as a function of the mass of gases (OFF) produced by the combustion in the previous work cycle and present inside each one of the number of cylinders.”
Regarding “each cylinder of an internal combustion engine; wherein the internal combustion engine comprises a number of cylinders, each connected to an intake manifold, from which each one of the number of cylinders receives fresh air through at least one respective intake valve, and to an exhaust manifold, into which each one of the number of cylinders introduces exhaust gases produced by combustion through at least one respective exhaust valve; and wherein the at least one respective intake valve and/or at least one respective exhaust valve are controlled so as to change a timing thereof,” the examiner submits that these limitations are recitations of intended use or purpose of the preamble of the claimed method (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02) that are not germane to patentability of the claim, especially since none of the steps of the claimed method are performed by or otherwise involve the elements of the recitations of intended use or purpose of the preamble of the claim, such that the preamble recitations amount to insignificant extra-solution elements which are merely associated with performing of the claimed process and which are all recited at a high level of generality. None of the “determining…” and “calculating…” steps are performed by the preamble elements, and no structure is recited to perform any of the “determining…” and “calculating…” steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The examiner previously took Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) in the non-final Office Action mailed 03/19/2025 that the internal combustion engine structure recited by the preamble recitations of the method of claim 1 are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art, and said common knowledge or well-known in the art statement was taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant’s prior remarks filed 06/20/2025 did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03_C). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-17 are not patent eligible under at least the same rationales as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, claims 1-12 and 14-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over the Prior Art
As discussed in detail above throughout the rejections of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 101, the intended scope of the claim is unclear, and it is not believed to be possible to make a proper prior art rejection against the indefinite claim. Whether claim 1 is directed to allowable subject matter will be revisited in the event that the claim is amended to overcome all of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-12 and 14-17 are dependent from claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights