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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 03/12/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending.
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 1-3, 6, 7, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0142642 (Grime hereinafter) in view of US 2016/0356237 (Pursifull hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Grime teaches fuel supply system for an engine that discloses a fuel pump having a fuel pump motor (Pump 30 with motor 34); a characterization device integrated with the fuel pump motor (The characteristic device being the programming integrated with the motor and used to control the motor 30 for the pump 32) and having a value representing one or more identifying characteristics that correspond to the fuel pump (¶ 43 discloses the specific speed commands and sensed values); and a fuel pump motor controller to regulate fuel metering, wherein the fuel pump motor controller (Controller 12 per ¶ 28 and 43): receives the value from the characterization device (¶ 43); receive a fuel flow command from the engine; calculate a command speed of the fuel pump motor (Inherent of the start and any further request for fuel command); and control the fuel pump motor to regulate delivery of fuel to the engine based in part on the command speed (Inherent of the control of the fuel pump).
Grime is silent with respect to the step of to compare the value to a listing of values corresponding to volumetric efficiency of a fuel pump.
However, Pursifull teaches a fuel control system that discloses a step of comparing the value to a listing of values corresponding to volumetric efficiency of a fuel pump (¶ 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control scheme of Grime with the volumetric comparison of Pursifull to ensure that the desired fuel volume is being delivered as is requested.
Regarding claim 3, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Grime and Pursifull would disclose that the characterization device is integrated with the fuel pump (Evident of Grime sensing the current used).
Regarding claim 6, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Grime and Pursifull would disclose an engine controller operable to: receive a command signal to operate the engine (Initial start-up command to send fuel); and transmit the fuel flow command to the fuel pump motor controller, the fuel flow command comprising fuel metering data (inherent sensing of Grime).
Regarding claim 7, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Grime and Pursifull would disclose the fuel pump motor controller is operable to control a speed of the fuel motor pump to deliver the fuel based on the fuel metering data (Inherent pump control of Grime).
Regarding claim 16, Grime teaches fuel supply system for an engine that discloses a fuel pump having a fuel pump motor (Pump 30 with motor 34) wherein the fuel pump having the motor delivers fuel to a channel that leads from the pump the engine (Figure 1 with passage from 30 to rails 24); one or more sensors to measure pump output (Sensors feeding the controller 12 per ¶ 28 and 43); and a fuel pump motor controller to regulate fuel metering, the fuel pump motor controller (Controller 12) operable to: receive a pump output value from the one or more sensors (¶ 43); and control the fuel pump motor to regulate delivery of fuel to the engine based in part on the command speed (Inherent of the control of the fuel pump).
Grime silent with respect to calculate volumetric efficiency of the fuel pump based on the pump output value; calculate a command speed of the fuel pump motor based on the volumetric efficiency.
However, Pursifull teaches a fuel control system that discloses a step of comparing the value to a listing of values corresponding to volumetric efficiency of a fuel pump (¶ 42). The resultant combination would allow for the controller to calculate a command speed of the fuel pump motor based on the volumetric efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control scheme of Grime with the volumetric comparison of Pursifull to ensure that the desired fuel volume is being delivered as is requested.
Regarding claim 17, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 were the combination of Grime and Pursifull would further disclose that the one or more sensors is a pressure sensor to measure pump output as fluid flow or pressure from the fuel pump (¶ 43-44 of Grime details the use of a fuel flow).
Regarding claim 18, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 were the combination of Grime and Pursifull would further disclose a variable downstream restriction device to adjust an output pressure of the fuel pump and characterize the condition of the pump (Valve 27 of Grime per ¶ 32), wherein the downstream restriction device is located downstream of the fuel pump and upstream of the engine (Grime Figure 1 shows 27 being upstream of 24 and downstream of 30).
Regarding claim 19, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 were the combination of Grime and Pursifull would further disclose that the variable downstream restriction device comprises an adjustable valve (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pressure relief valve 27 of Grime is a variable downstream valve).
Regarding claim 20, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 were the combination of Grime and Pursifull would further disclose that the fuel pump motor controller is configured to measure the pump output during an engine start up or calibration sequence (Inherent for the fuel pump of Grime to operate as described during an engine start-up due to fuel being required during engine start-up).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0142642 (Grime) in view of US 2016/0356237 (Pursifull) and further in view of US 2015/0068495 (Ross hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Grime and Pursifull would disclose a fuel tank connected to the fuel pump (Tank 40 of Grime).
However, Ross teaches a fuel control system that discloses the use of a boost pressure pumping between a fuel tank and a fuel pump (Figure 2 with ¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fuel system of Grime with the boost pump of Ross to ensure that the fuel is delivered at the required pressure.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0142642 (Grime) in view of US 2016/0356237 (Pursifull) and further in view of US 2016/0252032 (Graf hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to comprising one or more of a pressure sensor or a temperature sensor.
However, Graf teaches a fuel pump control scheme that discloses comprising a temperature sensor (¶ 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control scheme and sensors of Grime with the temperature sensor of Graf to ensure that fluid is being pumped at an acceptable temperature.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0142642 (Grime) in view of US 2016/0356237 (Pursifull) and further in view of US 5715797 (Minagawa hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 but are silent with respect that the characterization device is a resistor with a resistance that includes one or more discrete resistance values.
However, Minagawa teaches a fuel system and control scheme that discloses the use of a resistor acting as a sensor for the fuel pump (Column 11 Lines 25-45). The resultant combination would be such that the characterization device is a resistor with a resistance that includes one or more discrete resistance values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensing of Grime with the resistance sensing of Minagawa to directly sense the pump motor and allow for accurate motor control.
Regarding claim 9, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Grime, Pursifull, and Minagawa would further disclose the fuel pump motor controller is further operable to: receive a first resistance value of the one or more discrete resistance values to determine a type of pump; and receive a second resistance value of the one or more discrete resistance values to calculate the volumetric efficiency of the fuel pump motor.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0142642 (Grime) in view of US 2016/0356237 (Pursifull) and further in view of US 2002/0032095 (Miyata hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a transmission to modify speed of the flow of fuel from the fuel pump at a given speed of the fuel pump motor.
However, Miyata teaches a pump drive system that discloses a transmission to modify speed of the flow of fuel from the fuel pump at a given speed of the fuel pump motor (¶ 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump system of Grime with the transmission of Miyata to allow for further control of the pump system of Grime.
Regarding claim 11, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 10 where the combination of Grime and Miyata would further disclose that the transmission includes one or more of a clutch or gears (Miyata ¶ 25).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0142642 (Grime) in view of US 2016/0356237 (Pursifull) and further in view of US 2008/0216799 (Wunderlich hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to the characterization device includes a distance sensor to measure a distance between one or more components of the fuel pump.
However, Wunderlich teaches a fuel pump that discloses a distance sensor to measure a distance between one or more components of the fuel pump (¶ 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensing components of Grime with the distance sensor of Wunderlich to ensure that the components are correctly placed.
Regarding claim 13, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Grime and Wunderlich would further disclose that the distance sensor comprises one or more of a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) or a hall-effect sensor (¶ 29).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0142642 (Grime) in view of US 2016/0356237 (Pursifull) in view of US 2008/0216799 (Wunderlich) and further in view of US 4241484 (Graham hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 but are silent with respect to a distance adjuster to set the distance.
However, Graham teaches a pump housing that discloses the use of a mounting bolts that under the broadest reasonable interpretation function as distance adjusters depending on the size of the motor (Figure 1, bolts 58A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump housing of Grime with the mounting variable mounting bolts of Graham to ensure that the motor is securely mounted.
Regarding claim 15, Grime’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Grime and Graham would further disclose that the distance adjuster comprises a threaded distance adjuster (Threaded bolts of Graham in Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim amendments about the characterization device in claim 1 have been reviewed but is not found to be persuasive. Applicant is arguing a narrow interpretation of what can constitute the characterization device relative to what is described in the specification as filed. Applicant would be advised to either further clarify the required structure in the claims or amend the name to imply specific structure. The set forth amendments require the characterization device to be integrated with the fuel pump and Figure 1 of Grime shows the connection between the fuel pump/pump motor (32 and 30, respectively) and the characterization device as described above in the rejection of claim 1 above. Applicant is appearing to want the characterization device within the fuel pump as opposed to relied upon control scheme of Grime. Again, Applicant is advised to further amend to clarify this relationship if this is want was desired. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 16 have been reviewed but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant argues that the Pursifull reference fails to disclose calculating a volumetric efficiency based on a pump output value received from one or more sensors. Pursifull in ¶ 42 (as cited before) states “DI pump performance may be monitored by estimating or measuring a DI pump volumetric efficiency. For example, a DI pump model may compute an expected DI pump volumetric flow rate and compare the expected DI pump volumetric flow rate to the commanded pump volumetric flow rate.” The measurement step implies the use of at least one sensor and the repeated section of ¶ 42 as well as its entirety would sufficiently teach “calculating a volumetric efficiency based on a pump output value received from one or more sensors” and therefore this teaching would be present in the combination of Grime and Pursifull. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 16 are not found to be persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights