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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 21, 24-28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0281615 to Flynn et al. (hereinafter: “Flynn”).
With respect to claim 21, Flynn teaches a system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3), comprising: a first fuel system (e.g., 232) containing a first fuel (as depicted by at least Fig. 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0044-0047); a second fuel system (e.g., 234) containing a second fuel different from the first fuel (as depicted by at least Fig. 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0044-0047); an engine (104) coupled to the first fuel system and the second fuel system (apparent from at least Fig. 2); and a controller (180) comprising computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory thereof that when executed (as discussed by at least ¶ 0034, 0036, 0054, 0060, 0067 & 0074) enable the controller to: adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine [as depicted by at least Figs. 2, 4 & 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034, 0036, 0053-0054, 0088 & 0099, the controller 180 is structured to execute functions to reduce a substitution ratio from a first ratio to a second ratio, thereby deriving a greater percentage of engine power from diesel fuel in the second ratio as compared to the first ratio (e.g., “increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine”) and deriving a lesser percentage of engine power from gaseous fuel in the second ratio as compared to the first ratio, responsive to an intake manifold temperature (e.g., “current engine temperature”) exceeding a threshold temperature (e.g., “determined engine temperature”), thereby reducing the intake manifold temperature toward the threshold temperature]; and adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based at least in part on the current engine temperature (as depicted by at least Figs. 2, 4 & 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034, 0036, 0053-0054, 0088 & 0099, the controller 180 is structured to execute functions to adjust the substitution ratio from the first ratio to the second ratio based, in part, on the intake manifold temperature).
With respect to claim 24, Flynn teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust an amount of hydrogen delivered to the engine based at least in part on the current engine temperature (for example, diesel is a first hydrocarbon fuel including a first amount of hydrogen atoms, and natural gas is a second hydrocarbon fuel including a second amount of hydrogen atoms different from the first amount, such that adjusting the substitution ratio necessarily adjusts “an amount of hydrogen delivered to the engine,” including when the adjusting the substitution ratio is based, in part, on the intake manifold temperature, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 21).
With respect to claim 25, Flynn teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to be responsive to a manifold temperature (as discussed by at least ¶ 0034).
With respect to claim 26, Flynn teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to adjust one or more of an engine speed, a boost air flow rate, an injection timing, a valve timing, an exhaust gas temperature, and a cooler outlet temperature based at least in part on the current engine temperature (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0060-0073 & 0097; because an engine speed, a boost air flow rate, an injection timing, a valve timing, an exhaust gas temperature, and a cooler outlet temperature are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 27, Flynn teaches the system of claim 26, wherein computer-readable instructions enable the controller to cause one or more of a decrease in the engine speed, an increase in the boost air flow rate, a retard in the injection timing, an advance in the valve timing, an increase in the exhaust gas temperature, and an increase in the cooler outlet temperature based at least in part on the current engine temperature (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0060-0073 & 0097; because a decrease in the engine speed, an increase in the boost air flow rate, a retard in the injection timing, an advance in the valve timing, an increase in the exhaust gas temperature, and an increase in the cooler outlet temperature are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 28, Flynn teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the computer-readable instructions further enable the controller to adjust the current engine temperature to the determined engine temperature via adjusting at least one of a valve timing or an ignition timing (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0060-0073 & 0097; because via adjusting a valve timing and via adjusting an ignition timing are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 31, Flynn teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the substitution ratio comprises one or more of gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, hydrogenation-derived renewable diesel (HDRD), alcohol(s), ethers, hydrogen, natural gas, kerosene, and syn-gas (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0044-0045; because gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, HDRD, alcohol, ethers, hydrogen, natural gas, kerosene, and syn-gas are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
Claims 32-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0259290 to Michikawauchi et al. (hereinafter: “Michikawauchi”).
With respect to claim 32, Michikawauchi teaches a system (apparent from at least Fig. 1), comprising: a first fuel system (e.g., 6b, 32, 33, 34 & 35) containing a first fuel (e.g., “highly combustible substance,” such as hydrogen); a second fuel system (e.g., 6a, 28, 29, 30 & 31) containing a second fuel (e.g., ammonia) different than the first fuel (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0101 & 0105); an engine (1) coupled to the first fuel system and the second fuel system (apparent from at least Fig. 1); and a controller (40) comprising computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory thereof that when executed (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0107) enable the controller to: adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0008-0022, 0101, 0104-0105, 0107-0108, 0128-0129, 0228-0230 & 0294-0295, the electronic control unit 40 is structured to execute functions to adjust a ratio of an amount of the ammonia to a total fuel amount of the ammonia and the highly combustible substance); adjust a non-fuel mass in response to an adjustment to the substitution ratio [for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0109-0110, 0139, 0164-0170 & 0239, the electronic control unit 40 is structured to execute functions to adjust a rich air-fuel ratio, including unburned fuel (e.g., “non-fuel mass”), toward a stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, such that an amount of the unburned fuel is adjusted, via control of an intake air amount via control of a throttle valve 10, responsive to an adjustment to the ratio of the amount of the ammonia to the total fuel amount of the ammonia and the highly combustible substance].
With respect to claim 33, Michikawauchi teaches the system of claim 32, wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to further adjust the non-fuel mass based on an engine temperature [for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 23 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0109-0110 & 0166-0170, the electronic control unit 40 is structured to execute functions to adjust the rich air-fuel ratio toward the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, such that the amount of the unburned fuel is adjusted, based on one or more temperature(s) of the engine 1].
With respect to claim 34, Michikawauchi teaches the system of claim 33, wherein the controller is configured to increase the non-fuel mass responsive to an increase in the engine temperature [for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 23 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0109-0110 & 0166-0170, the electronic control unit 40 is structured to execute functions to such that, prior to the adjustment from the rich air-fuel ratio toward the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, an air-fuel ratio increases toward the rich air-fuel ratio, such that the amount of the unburned fuel is increased, at times including when the one or more temperature(s) of the engine 1 increases by at least a smallest degree or amount].
With respect to claim 35, Michikawauchi teaches the system of claim 32, wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust an ignitability of a combustion mixture comprising at least one of the first fuel or the second fuel via adjusting the non-fuel mass (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0042, 0109-0110, 0166-0170, 0173 & 0264-0265, the electronic control unit 40 is structured to execute functions to adjust the rich air-fuel ratio toward the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, such that the amount of the unburned fuel is and ignitability of an adjusted combusted air-fuel mixture are adjusted; because the first fuel and the second fuel are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 36, Michikawauchi teaches the system of claim 35, wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to decrease a cylinder temperature via reducing the ignitability of the combustion mixture (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0010-0011 & 0042).
With respect to claim 37, Michikawauchi teaches the system of claim 32, wherein the adjustment to the substitution ratio comprises an increase in an amount of the second fuel delivered to the engine (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0008-0022), wherein the controller is configured to adjust the non-fuel mass based on single fuel operation conditions associated with the first fuel (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0033-0035, 0166-0170 & 0224-0230).
With respect to claim 38, Michikawauchi teaches the system of claim 32, wherein the non-fuel mass comprises ammonia, ethanol, or methanol (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 32; because ammonia, ethanol, and methanol are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 39, Michikawauchi teaches the system of claim 32, wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to increase the non-fuel mass in response to an increase in the substitution ratio beyond a determined threshold substitution ratio [for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 23 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008-0022, 0109-0110 & 0166-0170, the electronic control unit 40 is structured to execute functions to such that, prior to the adjustment from the rich air-fuel ratio toward the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, an air-fuel ratio increases toward the rich air-fuel ratio, such that the amount of the unburned fuel is increased, at times including when the ratio of the amount of the ammonia to the total fuel amount of the ammonia and the highly combustible substance has been increased by at least a smallest possible amount beyond zero (e.g., “determined threshold substitution ratio”)].
With respect to claim 40, Michikawauchi teaches the system of claim 39, wherein the determined threshold substitution ratio is based on an ignitability associated with the substitution ratio [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “wherein the determined threshold substitution ratio is based on an ignitability associated with the substitution ratio” requires the claimed “system” (or a claimed element thereof) to perform an additional step or necessarily further limits structure of the claimed “system” (or a claimed element thereof), such that “wherein the determined threshold substitution ratio is based on an ignitability associated with the substitution ratio” does not necessarily further limit the “system” of claim 40 under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, every possible ratio of the amount of the ammonia to the total fuel amount of the ammonia and the highly combustible substance is necessarily based on an ignitability associated with said ratio of the amount of the ammonia to the total fuel amount of the ammonia and the highly combustible substance].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0069287 to Lavertu et al. (hereinafter: “Lavertu”).
With respect to claim 22, Flynn teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust an amount of EGR [as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0022-0028 & 0062 (especially ¶ 0026)]; however, Flynn appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust an amount of EGR based at least in part on the current engine temperature.
Lavertu teaches an analogous system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3) including a controller (32) configured to adjust an amount of EGR based at least in part on a current engine temperature (as discussed by at least ¶ 0049-0052).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Flynn with the teachings of Lavertu, if even necessary, such that the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust an amount of EGR based at least in part on the current engine temperature to beneficially improve fuel flexibility of the engine (as discussed by at least ¶ 0049 of Lavertu).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0229838 to Sturman (hereinafter: “Sturman”).
With respect to claim 23, Flynn teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust amounts of first and second fuels delivered to the engine based at least in part on the current engine temperature (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 21), and the disclosure of Flynn is open-ended with respect to types of fuels to be adjustably delivered to the engine, although in one example the engine is a compression-ignition engine fueled with a liquid fuel and a gaseous fuel, where the liquid fuel is diesel and the gaseous fuel is natural gas (as discussed by at least ¶ 0019); however, Flynn appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust an amount of ammonia delivered to the engine based at least in part on the current engine temperature
Sturman teaches an analogous system (apparent from at least Fig. 1) in which a compression-ignition engine is fueled with a liquid fuel and a gaseous fuel, where the liquid fuel is one of diesel and ammonia, and where the gaseous fuel is natural gas (as discussed by at least ¶ 0022-0024, 0026 & 0033-0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Flynn with the teachings of Sturman such that the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust an amount of ammonia delivered to the engine based at least in part on the current engine temperature because, as discussed in detail above, Flynn is open-ended with respect to types of fuels to be adjustably delivered to the engine and teaches in one example that the engine is a compression-ignition engine fueled with a liquid fuel and a gaseous fuel, where the liquid fuel is diesel and the gaseous fuel is natural gas, and Sturman demonstrates that fueling a compression-ignition engine with ammonia as a liquid fuel together with natural gas as a gaseous fuel is a simple alternative to fueling the compression-ignition engine with diesel as the liquid fuel together with natural gas as the gaseous fuel. Therefore, such a modification would amount to a simple substitution one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B).
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0089278 to Tulapurkar et al. (hereinafter: “Tulapurkar”).
With respect to claim 29, Flynn teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to adjust amounts of air and fuel, including to adjust the amounts of air and fuel based, in part, on the substitution ratio (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0034, 0036, 0041, 0049, 0054, 0060, 0067 & 0070); however, Flynn appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the controller is configured to adjust an air/fuel ratio.
Tulapurkar teaches an analogous system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3) including a controller (40) configured to adjust an air/fuel ratio, including to adjust the air/fuel ratio based at least in part on the substitution ratio (as depicted by at least Figs. 4 & 5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0016, 0019, 0023, 0035, 0046, 0049 & 0051-0053).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Flynn with the teachings of Tulapurkar, if even necessary, such that the controller is configured to adjust an air/fuel ratio, including to adjust the air/fuel ratio based at least in part on the substitution ratio, to beneficially enable larger changes in a desired air/fuel ratio and/or quicker responses in changing the desired air/fuel ratio via fuel adjustments including substitution ratio adjustments (as discussed by at least ¶ 0051 of Tulapurkar).
With respect to claim 30, Flynn modified supra teaches the system of claim 29, wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust the air/fuel ratio based at least in part on the substitution ratio (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 29).
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 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 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747