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 .
The amendment filed on July 6, 2026 has been considered.
Filing Receipt
It is noted that the filing receipt filed on November 13, 2024 does not have the claim to foreign priority (see the ADS filed on December 27, 2023).
.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on December 28, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202221076602 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1, “the memory system comprises a local memory system and a cloud memory system” is not described in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on July 6, 2026 are not acceptable because:
1/ Lines, letters, and numbers are not dark enough and are fading away, 37 CFR 1.84(l): See Figs. 3C.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show Fig. 2b and Fig. 2c as described in the specification (see paragraph 0072). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18, “the cloud memory” (line 6) should be – the cloud memory system --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21, “the memory system” (lines 4-5) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets “the memory system” to be – the cloud memory system --.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea of “maps the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging” (evaluation, mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor/memory/fuel trim diagnostic system) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application of the abstract idea.
A data interface configured to receive engine data from an engine management system configured to receive a plurality of parameters from sensors that monitor the parameters indicative of engine operation are directed to insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A data interface configured to receive engine data from an engine management system configured to receive a plurality of parameters from sensors that monitor the parameters indicative of engine operation are also directed to well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, has been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 19-21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 4-7, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 21 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities data gathering.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 and their respective dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Esposito (US 2018/0156151).
Regarding claim 12, Esposito discloses a method for diagnosing a clogged injector of an internal combustion engine (paragraph 0013) having a plurality of one or more sensors (paragraph 0012) configured to monitor the engine (detect clogging of fuel injector, paragraph 0012, lines 1-4) in communication with an engine management system (ECU, paragraph 0012), the method comprising:
receiving engine data from the engine management system, where the engine data comprises a plurality of parameters from the one or more sensors (detect clogging of fuel injector can be implemented using the ECU and sensors, paragraph 0012, lines 1-4, paragraph 0012, lines 1-4); and
mapping, by a processor (ECU 460, paragraph 0028), the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging (each difference of fuel quantities identifies a clog or a partial clog, paragraph 0013, lines 2-6; paragraph 0017; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Esposito discloses the sensors detect modalities to determine the plurality of parameters selected from engine speed (paragraph 0037).
It is noted that the plurality of parameters selected from a list consisting of long-term and short-term fuel trims, engine load, data from oxygen sensor, mass flow air sensor, manifold absolute pressure sensor, fuel pressure sensor, and any combination thereof is an alternative limitation because it recited in the alternative form.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esposito in view of Li (CN 112165454).
Regarding claim 1, Esposito discloses a system and method for diagnosing a clogged injector of an internal combustion engine (110) (Abstract, lines 1-2) comprising:
a data interface configured to receive engine data from an engine management system (ECU 450) configured to receive a plurality of parameters from sensors (paragraph 0012) that monitor the parameters indicative of engine operation (detect clogging of fuel injector can be implemented using sensors, paragraph 0012, lines 1-4, paragraph 0012, lines 1-4);
a fuel trim diagnostic system stored as computer programs (program, paragraph 0028, lines 4-5) comprising executable instructions (instructions, paragraph 0028, lines 4-5) in a memory system (memory system, paragraph 0028, lines 4-5); and
a processor (CPU 460) configured to execute the executable instructions of the computer programs of the fuel trim diagnostic system (paragraph 0028), where when executed the fuel diagnostic system maps the plurality of parameters (each difference of fuel quantities, Abstract, lines 7-9; paragraph 0013, lines 2-3, where difference is small, less than a threshold, paragraph 0013, lines 3-6) to different levels of fuel injector clogging (each difference of fuel quantities identifies a clog or a partial clog, paragraph 0013, lines 2-6; paragraph 0017; Fig. 3).
Esposito does not disclose the memory system comprising a local memory system and a cloud memory system.
Li discloses a memory system comprising a local memory system and a cloud memory system for storing a computer program (page 4, paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Esposito with a memory system comprising a local memory system and a cloud memory system as disclosed by Li for the purpose of storing a computer program.
Regarding claim 2, Esposito discloses the sensors detect modalities to determine the plurality of parameters selected from engine speed (paragraph 0037).
It is noted that the plurality of parameters selected from a list consisting of long-term and short-term fuel trims, engine load, data from oxygen sensor, mass flow air sensor, manifold absolute pressure sensor, fuel pressure sensor, and any combination thereof is an alternative limitation because it recited in the alternative form.
Prior Art Note
Claims 3-11 and 14-21 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a system and method for diagnosing a clogged injector of an internal combustion engine comprising analyze at least one drive cycle of the engine cycle data to calculate effective fuel trims during time periods in predetermined operation modes of engine operation, where engine cycle data comprising the long-term and short-term fuel trims, engine load, and engine speed (claims 3, 14) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 6, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new drawing objection is made as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the claim interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “the Office fails to articulate the specific abstract idea to which the claims are directed (e.g., mental concept, mathematical concept, etc.).”
Examiner’s position is that the abstract idea of “maps the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging” involves an evaluation process that can be performed by a mental process.
Applicants further argue “the claims recite a concrete system including a data interface, a fuel trim diagnostic system stored as computer programs in a memory system, and a processor - all configured to work together to perform a specific diagnostic function on engine data received from an engine management system. The mapping of parameters to clogging levels is not performed abstractly; it is performed by executing specific computer programs stored in a memory system on a processor, operating on specific engine parameters received through a data interface. Such is not an abstract idea but a specific technical implementation of a diagnostic system.”
Examiner’s position is that the data interface is configured to receive engine data from an engine management system configured to receive a plurality of parameters from sensors that monitor the parameters indicative of engine operation is directed to insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is also directed to well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The received data is used by the processor executing computer programs (i.e., fuel trim diagnostic system) stored in a memory system for performing “mapping the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging”. Thus, as a whole, the claims are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities (data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(g)), used by a generic processor (processor/memory/computer program/fuel trim diagnostic system – computer program, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor/memory/fuel trim diagnostic system) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)) to perform an abstract idea (i.e., mapping the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging). The abstract idea is not performed by a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)). There is no technical implementation of a diagnostic system other than a generic processor gathering data for performing an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Applicants further argue “the claims impose a meaningful limit on the alleged judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. More specifically, as noted in the background, there exists a need to track the contrast in combustion ratio across different operating modes defined on the engine speed and calculated engine load plane, which ensure heightened sensitivity to injector closing. The present invention utilizes the fuel diagnostic system to map the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging. Thus, the present invention is able to provide early onset diagnostics for clogged injectors using fuel trims evaluated in different operating modes.”
Examiner’s position is that a meaningful application is not integrated in the claim. For example, there is no meaningful application to, e.g., correct/reduce the fuel injector clogging. The “mapping the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging” is not used/applied in a meaningful way. Accordingly, the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Applicants further argue “[t]he claims recite a data interface configured to receive engine data from an engine management system configured to receive a plurality of parameters from one or more sensors that monitor the parameters indicative of engine operation. Applicant respectfully submits that the data interface is not a mere data-gathering step appended to an abstract idea. The data interface is a structural component that receives specific engine parameters - including long-term and short-term fuel trims, engine load, engine speed, and data from specific named sensors - from an engine management system. These parameters are the specific inputs that enable the fuel trim diagnostic system to perform its classification function. The data interface is integral to the claimed system, not peripheral to it.”
Examiner’s position is that the data interface has no specific/special structure. Thus, the data interface is a generic/conventional element and is not considered to be a significantly more additional element.
Accordingly, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea that is not indicative of integration into a practical application without significantly more additional elements.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102, Applicants argue “Esposito does not disclose that: the fuel diagnostic system maps the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging, as recited in amended independent claim 1, and similarly in amended independent claim 12.”
Examiner’s position is that, as discussed above, Esposito discloses a processor (CPU 460) configured to execute the executable instructions of the computer programs of the fuel trim diagnostic system (paragraph 0028), where when executed the fuel diagnostic system maps the plurality of parameters (difference of fuel quantities, Abstract, lines 7-9; paragraph 0013, lines 2-3, where difference is small, less than a threshold, paragraph 0013, lines 3-6) to different levels of fuel injector clogging (each difference of fuel quantities identifies a clog or a partial clog, paragraph 0013, lines 2-6).
Applicants further argue “[i]n contrast to the present invention, Esposito does not disclose that the fuel diagnostic system maps the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging. Esposito discloses only a single calculated difference - between a requested fuel quantity with one injector switched off and a reference fuel quantity with all injectors operating - compared against a single threshold to yield a binary identification of whether a given injector is clogged. There is no plurality of parameters, no mapping to different levels of clogging …”.
Examiner’s position is that Esposito discloses “comparing each calculated difference with a predetermined threshold vale” (paragraph 0013, lines 2-3). Esposito suggests a plurality of parameters by disclosing “each calculated difference”. Each calculated difference … provides a reliable solution for detecting the clogged or partially clogged fuel injector …” (paragraph 0013, lines 6-8). Accordingly, Esposito suggests mapping the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging (paragraph 0013, lines 2-8).
Applicants further argue “[t]here is … no fuel trim diagnostic system stored as computer programs in a memory system that performs such a multi-parameter classification.
Cited para. [0028] of Esposito, which describes the ECU's CPU executing instructions stored as a program in a memory system, only implements an idle-mode fuel quantity difference method - it does not implement a fuel trim diagnostic system that maps a plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging. The ECU of Esposito is not configured to perform a specific multi- parameter classification function.”
Examiner’s position is that Esposito discloses “CPU is configured to execute instructions stored as a program in the memory system … The program may embody the methods disclosed herein, allowing the CPU to carryout out the steps of such methods and control the ICE 110” (paragraph 0028). Esposito further discloses the program may embody a method of detecting a clogging of a fuel injector (paragraph 0017; Fig. 3). As discussed above, Esposito suggests mapping the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging (paragraph 0013, lines 2-8). Accordingly, Esposito discloses a fuel trim diagnostic system stored as computer programs in a memory system that performs such a multi-parameter classification (mapping the plurality of parameters to different levels of fuel injector clogging, paragraph 0013, lines 2-8).
Applicants further argue “Esposito does not disclose sensors that detect modalities to determine a plurality of parameters that are then mapped to different levels of clogging.”
Examiner’s position is that Esposito discloses “adjusting a requested value of the quantity of fuel that has to be injected into the combustion chambers 150 to minimize a difference between the measured speed and the idle speed” (paragraph 0037). The speed has to be measured/sensed to determine a minimum speed difference, if not, continue adjusting the requested value of the quantity of fuel. The requested value of the quantity of fuel is used to map/identify the level of clogging (fully or partially, paragraph 0013). Accordingly, Esposito discloses sensors that detect modalities (speed) to determine a plurality of parameters that are then mapped to different levels of clogging.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at ((571) 272-2302. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
October 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights