DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
This objection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the drawings.
Specification
This objection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
This rejection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the claims.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 recites at least one step or instruction for calculating cylinder pressure, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claims are broadly requiring the receiving of data to determine which value is appropriate to use for engine operation. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites (I typically bolded additional elements and underlined abstract ideas) (additional element);
a method for operating an internal combustion engine, comprising: collecting a knocking signal of a knocking sensor; collecting a cylinder pressure signal of a cylinder pressure sensor, wherein the cylinder pressure signal is representative of a cylinder pressure prevailing in at least one combustion chamber of the internal combustion engine; determining an estimated cylinder pressure on the basis of a model and the knocking signal; subjecting the cylinder pressure signal to a plausibility check; and if the cylinder pressure signal is not plausible according to the plausibility check, using the estimated cylinder pressure for the operation of the internal combustion engine.
These qualify as observations, judgments and evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); which is just a set of rules a human can follow in their mind; Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 14, 19 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 14, 19), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a controller, a sensor, an engine as recited in independent Claim 1, 14, 19 and its dependent claims; and a server, a client device and a trackable sensor as recited in independent Claim 1, 14, 19 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 14, 19 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 14, 19 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., _controller as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 14, 19 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 14, 19 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a controller, a sensor, an engine etc. as recited in independent Claim 1, 14 19 and its dependent claims; and a server, a client device and a trackable sensor as recited in independent Claim 1, 14, 19 and its dependent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, in paragraph 2 this is a computer program with generic computer components and engine parts with generic engine components. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term controller is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the controller. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses, systems and methods of Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 14, 19 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Note: amendments submitted on 11/17/25 attempt to overcome the 101 rejection by stating that the engine is ‘controlled’ but does not state what that control is. This is an abstract idea of what “control” can mean.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Garimella (WO2017/039614).
Regarding claim 1, Garimella discloses a method for operating an internal combustion engine, comprising:
collecting a knocking signal (158 is a knock sensor providing a knock signal) of a knocking sensor; collecting a cylinder pressure signal of a cylinder pressure sensor (166), wherein the cylinder pressure signal is representative of a cylinder pressure prevailing in a combustion chamber of the internal combustion engine (note: this does not require that the sensor signal provided be for the cylinder that this claim is determining the pressure for);
determining an estimated cylinder pressure in the combustion chamber on the basis of a model and the knocking signal (¶14);
subjecting the cylinder pressure signal to a plausibility check to classify the cylinder pressure signal as either plausible or non-plausible (¶30 discloses the process of using in cylinder pressure signals along with knock signals in order to determine the pressure in the other cylinders. The plausibility check is the model that provides the value for the other cylinders. When the values match the sensor signal will be used otherwise the model is value is used.); and
controlling at least one control variable of the internal combustion engine based on a target operational parameter and at least partially based on the plausibility check, wherein controlling comprises:
controlling the internal combustion engine using the cylinder pressure signal in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as plausible; and
controlling the internal combustion engine using the estimated cylinder pressure in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as non-plausible (¶27 discloses what the controller can control as a result of the information).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Garimella discloses wherein, if the cylinder pressure signal is plausible according to the plausibility check, adapting the model on the basis of the cylinder pressure signal such that the estimated cylinder pressure comes closer to the cylinder pressure signal and/or the cylinder pressure prevailing in the at least one combustion chamber (the model and the value would be identical).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Garimella discloses wherein, the plausibility check comprises a plurality of plausibility checks to classify the cylinder pressure signal as either plausible or non-plausible for each cycle of the internal combustion engine, and at least one of the plurality of plausibility checks indicates a defect or failure of the cylinder pressure sensor (¶36 at the end discusses this is to determine operability of the sensor).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, Garimella discloses wherein the method is carried out in a time-resolved and/or crank-angle-resolved manner, in real time, during the operation of the internal combustion engine (this system is during operation).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 1, Garimella discloses comprising controlling the at least one control variable of the internal combustion engine using the estimated cylinder pressure and/or the cylinder pressure signal of the cylinder pressure sensor to come closer to the target operational parameter comprising a desired drive power (¶31 discloses the relationship between the pressures and torque), energy requirement and/or emission of the internal combustion engine.
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Garimella discloses comprising determining the plausibility of the cylinder pressure signal with the aid of at least one further determined operating parameter of the internal combustion engine (¶31-32 discloses also considering crankshaft speed).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 6, Garimella discloses wherein at least one of the following operating parameters is used as further determined operating parameter: an ignition time point; a drive power and/or a torque (¶31 discloses how the pressure is correlated to torque); an angular velocity and/or a mains frequency; a boost pressure; a charge air temperature; and/or a combustion temperature (torque option addressed).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 6, Garimella discloses wherein the at least one further determined operating parameter is provided as a measured sensor signal (152) by at least one sensor and/or by a controller of the internal combustion engine (sensor option addressed).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 6, Garimella discloses wherein the cylinder pressure signal is plausible according to the plausibility check when the cylinder pressure signal complies with a predefined relationship between a cylinder pressure signal and the at least one further determined operating parameter, wherein the predefined relationship defines a value range for the cylinder pressure signal (the range is the they are identical).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 1, Garimella discloses wherein, the at least one control variable comprises an ignition time point, a boost pressure, a supplied quantity of fuel, a supplied quantity of charge air (¶28-¶29 discloses how the pressure determination is used to control charge flow) and/or an exhaust gas recirculation rate (charge flow option addressed).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 1, Garimella discloses comprising, for each cycle of the internal combustion engine: collecting the cylinder pressure signal representative of the cylinder pressure prevailing in each of a plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies, wherein each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies comprises one of a plurality of combustion chambers and one of a plurality of cylinder pressure sensors; determining the estimated cylinder pressure in the combustion chamber of each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies on the basis of the model and the knocking signal; subjecting the cylinder pressure signal of each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies to the plausibility check to classify the cylinder pressure signal as either plausible or non-plausible as a defect or failure of the cylinder pressure sensor; adapting the model on the basis of the cylinder pressure signal, operating conditions, wear, and aging of the internal combustion engine, such that the estimated cylinder pressure comes closer to the cylinder pressure signal and/or the cylinder pressure prevailing in the at least one combustion chamber for each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies; and controlling the at least one control variable of the internal combustion engine based on the target operational parameter and at least partially based on the plausibility check for each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies, wherein controlling comprises, for each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies: controlling the internal combustion engine using the cylinder pressure signal in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as plausible; and controlling the internal combustion engine using the estimated cylinder pressure in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as non-plausible (the cylinder pressure signal is used to have the model provide a number closer to itself and otherwise has been addressed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 1, Garimella discloses comprising: a plurality of combustion chambers; a plurality of cylinder pressure sensors each arranged on one of the plurality of combustion chambers; one or more knocking sensors; and a controller configured to receive cylinder pressure signals of the plurality of cylinder pressure sensors and knocking signals of the one or more knocking sensors, wherein the controller is configured to execute the method of claim 1 for each combustion chamber of the plurality of combustion chambers for each cycle of the internal combustion engine. (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 1, Garimella discloses a computer program product, comprising commands stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by a controller, to perform the method of claim 1 (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Garimella discloses a system, comprising: a controller (156), configured to: collect a knocking signal of a knocking sensor; collect a cylinder pressure signal of a cylinder pressure sensor, wherein the cylinder pressure signal is representative of a cylinder pressure prevailing in a combustion chamber of the internal combustion engine; determine an estimated cylinder pressure in the combustion chamber on the basis of a model and the knocking signal; subject the cylinder pressure signal to a plausibility check to classify the cylinder pressure signal as either plausible or non-plausible; and control the at least one control variable of the internal combustion engine based on a target operational parameter and at least partially based on the plausibility check, wherein the control comprises operations to: control the internal combustion engine using the cylinder pressure signal in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as plausible; and control the internal combustion engine using the estimated cylinder pressure in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as non- plausible (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 14, Garimella discloses comprising the internal combustion engine having the controller (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 14, Garimella discloses wherein the controller is configured to adapt the model on the basis of the cylinder pressure signal, operating conditions, wear, and aging of the internal combustion engine, such that the estimated cylinder pressure comes closer to the cylinder pressure signal and/or the cylinder pressure prevailing in the combustion chamber (¶36 discloses this allows for diagnosing operability of the sensor).
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 16, Garimella discloses wherein the controller is configured to, for each cycle of the internal combustion engine: collect the cylinder pressure signal representative of the cylinder pressure prevailing in each of a plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies, wherein each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies comprises one of a plurality of combustion chambers and one of a plurality of cylinder pressure sensors; determine the estimated cylinder pressure in the combustion chamber of each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies on the basis of the model and the knocking signal; subject the cylinder pressure signal of each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies to the plausibility check to classify the cylinder pressure signal as either plausible or non-plausible as a defect or failure of the cylinder pressure sensor; adapt the model on the basis of the cylinder pressure signal, operating conditions, wear, and aging of the internal combustion engine, such that the estimated cylinder pressure comes closer to the cylinder pressure signal and/or the cylinder pressure prevailing in the combustion chamber for each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies; and control the at least one control variable of the internal combustion engine based on the target operational parameter and at least partially based on the plausibility check for each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies, wherein the control comprises, for each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies, operations to: control the internal combustion engine using the cylinder pressure signal in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as plausible; and control the internal combustion engine using the estimated cylinder pressure in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as non-plausible (The limitation of this claim have been addressed above).
Regarding claim 18 which depends from claim 17, Garimella discloses wherein, for each of the plurality of piston- cylinder assemblies, the controller is configured to adapt the model based on the cylinder pressure signal in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as plausible, and the controller is configured to not adapt the model based on the cylinder pressure signal in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as non-plausible (¶30 discloses the process of using in cylinder pressure signals along with knock signals in order to determine the pressure in the other cylinders. The plausibility check is the model that provides the value for the other cylinders. When the values match the sensor signal will be used otherwise the model is value is used.).
Regarding claim 19, Garimella discloses a system, comprising: a combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine; a knocking sensor configured to collect a knocking signal; a cylinder pressure sensor configured to collect a cylinder pressure signal, wherein the cylinder pressure signal is representative of a cylinder pressure prevailing in the combustion chamber of the internal combustion engine; a controller configured to: determine an estimated cylinder pressure in the combustion chamber on the basis of a model and the knocking signal; subject the cylinder pressure signal to a plausibility check to classify the cylinder pressure signal as either plausible or non-plausible; and control at least one control variable of the internal combustion engine based on a target operational parameter and at least partially based on the plausibility check, wherein the control comprises operations to: control the internal combustion engine using the cylinder pressure signal in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as plausible; and control the internal combustion engine using the estimated cylinder pressure in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as non- plausible (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 20 which depends from claim 19, Garimella discloses comprising the internal combustion engine having a plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies each having [[a]]one of a plurality of combustion chambers and one of a plurality of cylinder pressure sensors, wherein the controller is configured to, for each cycle of the internal combustion engine: collect the cylinder pressure signal of the cylinder pressure sensor of each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies; determine the estimated cylinder pressure in the combustion chamber of each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies on the basis of the model and the knocking signal; subject the cylinder pressure signal of each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies to a plurality of plausibility checks to classify the cylinder pressure signal as either plausible or non-plausible; adapt the model on the basis of the cylinder pressure signal, operating conditions, wear, and aging of the internal combustion engine, such that the estimated cylinder pressure comes closer to the cylinder pressure signal and/or the cylinder pressure prevailing in the combustion chamber for each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies; and control the at least one control variable of the internal combustion engine based on the target operational parameter and at least partially based on the plausibility check for each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies, wherein the control comprises, for each of the plurality of piston-cylinder assemblies, operations to: control the internal combustion engine using the cylinder pressure signal in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as plausible; and control the internal combustion engine using the estimated cylinder pressure in response to the plausibility check classifying the cylinder pressure signal as non-plausible (shown in fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 14-18 that the 101 rejection is incorrect because it is not a mental process and is an inventive concept. The 101 rejection was made because the standard vehicle parts of the claim are used to provide and environment where a computer performs calculations in order to calculate values and operate off those values. But the claims do not state what kind of operation is being performed as a result. The controller is collecting data through the known structure of sensors and then deciding whether those measured values are within a range of values. A human can compare numbers and even run simple models in their mind. Until the result of this analysis controls the environment in a non-abstract way this is considered limitations on the signals inside of a processor attempting to patent abstract ideas.
Applicant argues on pages 19 and 22 that because the cited reference only has one pressure sensor in one cylinder it does not meet the requirements of the claim which require that a pressure sensor signal be acquired. The cited reference is performing this method on at least one cylinder of the engine which is all that the claim requires. In addition the claim requires a sensor signal that is “representative” of the pressure in the cylinder being analyzed. The cited reference with the cylinder pressure of the one cylinder with a sensor is construed as “representative” of the other cylinders.
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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747