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 Arguments
The arguments filed 04/28/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-20 have been canceled; no claims have been amended, added, or withdrawn. Claims 21-40 are pending and under consideration.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant first asserts on pages 5-6 of the remarks that the prior art rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0281615 to Flynn et al. is improper and cannot be maintained because (a) “[the] Office Action does not identify where Flynn discloses [“via increasing an amount of the first fuel”] […] and instead asserts that increasing the amount of the first fuel ‘thereby’ adjusts engine temperature” (see pages 6-7 of the remarks), (b) “[the] Office Action remains silent with respect to the setpoint-driven nature of the claim [and] [substituting] a conditional response for a target-driven adjustment is not a permissible anticipation mapping because it replaces the claimed control architecture with something different (see page 6 of the remarks), and (c) “the Office Action improper maps the ‘current engine temperature’ recited in independent Claim 21 and the ‘manifold temperature’ recited in Claim 25 to the same ‘intake manifold temperature’ of Flynn” (see page 6 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully cannot fully agree. Firstly, regarding arguments (b), page 6 of Applicant’s remarks asserts that the “system” of claim 21 is “setpoint-driven” or “target-driven”; however, it is respectfully noted that claim 21 is silent to use of any setpoint(s) or target(s) by the claimed “controller.” In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (e.g., “setpoint-driven” or “target-driven”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 21 differently requires controller-implemented functions of “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine; and adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based at least in part on the current engine temperature” which unmistakably lacks requirement for use of any setpoint(s) or target(s) by the claimed “controller,” even if the broad scope of “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine; and adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based at least in part on the current engine temperature” does not exclude inclusion of unrecited “setpoint-driven” (or “target-driven”) element(s) in the claim.
Next, regarding arguments (a), upon further consideration, the examiner agrees that Flynn does not appear to fully provide disclosure of “adjust [via execution of instructions of a controller] a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine.” More specifically, upon further consideration, while the non-final Office Action mailed 01/28/2026 pointed out that Flynn disclosed to reduce, via execution of instructions of a controller (180), 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 (as depicted by at least Figs. 2, 4 & 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034, 0036, 0053-0054, 0088 & 0099 of Flynn), upon further consideration, it does not appear that Flynn fully teaches that the intake manifold temperature is actually reduced toward the threshold temperature as a result of deriving the greater percentage of engine power from the diesel fuel in the second ratio as compared to the first ratio and deriving the lesser percentage of the engine power from the gaseous fuel in the second ratio as compared to the first ratio. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Lastly, regarding arguments (c), the examiner acknowledges Applicant’s admission on page 6 of the remarks that the “manifold temperature” recited by “wherein the controller is further configured to be responsive to a manifold temperature” in claim 25, which depends from claim 21, is intended to be different from the “current engine temperature” recited by “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine; and adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based at least in part on the current engine temperature” in claim 21. The examiner notes that the instant application is a Continuation Application of a Parent Application No. 17/645,610, such that no “new matter” may be added by Applicant to the Continuation Application with respect to the Parent Application in order for the Continuation Application to be entitled to benefit of the earlier filing date of the Parent Application [e.g., see: MPEP 2163_II_A_3_(b)]. The examiner notes that the specification and drawings of the Parent Application differently discloses increasing (e.g., “adjusting”) a current intake manifold temperature to a determined intake manifold temperature via, for example, increasing a substituting ratio of a first fuel relative to a second fuel provided to the engine (as shown by at least 504, 508, 510, 518 & 520 of Fig. 5 of the Parent Application’s original drawings in view of at least ¶ 0063-0090 of the Parent Application’s original specification), therefore also disclosing adjusting the substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based at least in part on the current intake manifold temperature. The examiner further notes that the specification and drawings of the Parent Application fail to disclose “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine” as recited in claim 21. For example, ¶ 0010 of the Parent Application’s original specification discloses “The controller may determine the substitution ratio based at least in part on one or more of a current engine load, a current engine temperature, a current manifold temperature, a current injection timing, and a current air/fuel ratio,” and ¶ 0057 of the Parent Applicant’s specification discloses “Adjusting one or more of an intake valve timing, a fuel injection timing, a fuel temperature, a fuel pressure, an engine speed, an engine load, an air temperature, an engine temperature, a spark-timing, and boost pressure and/or manifold pressure may allow the fuel injection timing and/or spark timing to be adjusted from a baseline timing,” and neither of ¶ 0010 & 0057 of the Parent Application’s specification fully discloses “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine” as recited in claim 21. Thus, in view of the “new matter” of claim 21, the Continuation Application (filed 05/13/2024) is not entitled to benefit of the earlier filing date of the Parent Application. Also, in view of the presence of “new matter” in the instant application relative to the prior Parent Application, Applicant should delete the benefit claim, redesignate the instant application as a continuation-in-part, or cancel claims 21-31 [e.g., MPEP 201.06(c)_XII].
Therefore, upon further consideration, independent claim 21 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0404371 to Yerace et al.
Next, Applicant asserts on pages 6-7 of the remarks that the prior art rejection of independent claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0259290 to Michikawauchi et al. is improper and cannot be maintained because “Michikawauchi does not expressly disclose adjusting a ‘non-fuel mass’ as a distinct, controlled quantity in response to such ratio changes” (see page 7 of the remarks), “[the] Office Action further attempts to equate ‘unburned fuel’ with the claimed “non-fuel mass” (see page 7 of the remarks), “Michikawauchi does not disclose any control scheme in which such a non-fuel mass is adjusted in response to changes in the fuel substitution ratio” (see page 7 of the remarks), and “Michikawauchi fails to disclose a ‘non-fuel mass’ that is distinct from a first fuel of a first fuel system and a different, second fuel of a second fuel system” (see page 7 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (e.g., the implication that the “non-fuel mass” cannot be an adjusted unburned mass quantity of one of the “first fuel” and the “second fuel”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, claim 32 more broadly recites “adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel; adjust a non-fuel mass in response to an adjustment to the substitution ratio.” Notably, ¶ 0012 of the specification of the instant application expressly discloses that “In one example, the non-fuel mass is defined as a portion of a combustion mixture that reduces a cylinder temperature. Elements included in the non-fuel mass may function as fuels during some combustion conditions,” such that Applicant expressly intends for the “non-fuel mass” to include unburned fuel of a combustion mixture that reduces a cylinder temperature with respect to combustion of the combustion mixture. Only ¶ 0012-0013 of the specification of the instant application appears to address the “non-fuel mass” or control thereof. Respectfully, it is unclear why Applicant asserts that the “non-fuel mass” cannot be a controlled mass of unburned fuel of a combustion mixture in view of Applicant’s specification expressly disclosing the opposite.
As discussed in detail by the prior art rejection of claim 32 by the non-final Office Action mailed 01/28/2026, Michikawauchi teaches, for example, to: adjust, via execution of computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory of a controller 40, a ratio of an amount of the ammonia to a total fuel amount of the ammonia and the highly combustible substance (as discussed by at least ¶ 0008-0022, 0101, 0104-0105, 0107-0108, 0128-0129, 0228-0230 & 0294-0295 of Michikawauchi), and adjust, via the execution of the computer-readable instructions stored on the non-transitory memory of the controller 40, 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 (as discussed by at least ¶ 0022, 0109-0110, 0139, 0164-0170 & 0239 of Michikawauchi). Similar to Applicant’s disclosure, Michikawauchi discloses a controlled “non-fuel mass” inclusive of a controlled mass of unburned fuel portion of a multi-fuel combustion mixture in which the remainder of the multi-fuel combustion mixture is combusted. Nothing about claim 32 requires the “non-fuel mass” to be formed of a third fuel different from the “first fuel” and the “second fuel.” Nothing about claim 32 requires the “non-fuel mass” to be formed of a substance that never functions as fuel in any context. Nothing about claim 32 prohibits the “non-fuel mass” from being formed of an unburned mass portion of the “first fuel” and/or the “second fuel.”
Therefore, Michikawauchi fully teaches inclusion of “a controller comprising computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory thereof that when executed enable the controller to: adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel; adjust a non-fuel mass in response to an adjustment to the substitution ratio,” as recited by independent claim 32, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 21-40 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. For example, the drawings fail to show “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine; 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 recited in claim 21, and claims 22-31 depend from claim 21. Also, for example, the drawings fail to show “adjust a non-fuel mass in response to an adjustment to the substitution ratio” as recited in claim 32, and claims 33-40 depend from claim 32. Additionally, none of claims 22-24, 26-28, and 33-40 is shown by any of the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 32 should be amended to recite --and-- immediately following the semicolon at the end of line 7 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine; and adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based at least in part on the current engine temperature.” Applicant admits on page 6 of the remarks filed 04/28/2026 that the “manifold temperature” recited by “wherein the controller is further configured to be responsive to a manifold temperature” in claim 25, which depends from claim 21, is intended to be different from the “current engine temperature” recited by “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine; and adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based at least in part on the current engine temperature” in claim 21. The examiner notes that the instant application is a Continuation Application of a Parent Application No. 17/645,610, such that no “new matter” may be added by Applicant to the Continuation Application with respect to the Parent Application in order for the Continuation Application to be entitled to benefit of the earlier filing date of the Parent Application [e.g., see: MPEP 2163_II_A_3_(b)]. The examiner notes that the specification and drawings of the Parent Application differently discloses increasing (e.g., “adjusting”) a current intake manifold temperature to a determined intake manifold temperature via, for example, increasing a substituting ratio of a first fuel relative to a second fuel provided to the engine (as shown by at least 504, 508, 510, 518 & 520 of Fig. 5 of the Parent Application’s original drawings in view of at least ¶ 0063-0090 of the Parent Application’s original specification), therefore also disclosing adjusting the substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based at least in part on the current intake manifold temperature. The examiner further notes that the specification and drawings of the Parent Application fail to disclose “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine” as recited in claim 21, the specification and drawings of the instant application appear to be identical to the specification and drawings of the Parent Application, and the specification and drawings of the instant application also fail to disclose “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine” as recited in claim 21. For example, ¶ 0010 of the specification discloses “The controller may determine the substitution ratio based at least in part on one or more of a current engine load, a current engine temperature, a current manifold temperature, a current injection timing, and a current air/fuel ratio,” and ¶ 0057 of the specification discloses “Adjusting one or more of an intake valve timing, a fuel injection timing, a fuel temperature, a fuel pressure, an engine speed, an engine load, an air temperature, an engine temperature, a spark-timing, and boost pressure and/or manifold pressure may allow the fuel injection timing and/or spark timing to be adjusted from a baseline timing,” and neither of ¶ 0010 & 0057 of the specification fully discloses “adjust a current engine temperature to a determined engine temperature via increasing an amount of the first fuel provided to the engine” as recited in claim 21. Therefore, claim 21 improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 22-31 depend from claim 21, such that claims 22-31 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 21 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 21 is rejected.
Claim 22, which depends from claim 21, recites “wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust an amount of EGR based at least in part on the current engine temperature”; however, the examiner further notes that the specification and drawings of the instant application fail to additionally disclose or show “wherein the computer-readable instructions enable the controller to adjust an amount of EGR based at least in part on the current engine temperature” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 22. Therefore, claim 22 improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 23, which depends from claim 21, recites “wherein 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”; however, the examiner further notes that the specification and drawings of the instant application fail to additionally disclose or show “wherein 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” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 23. Therefore, claim 23 improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 24, which depends from claim 21, recites “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”; however, the examiner further notes that the specification and drawings of the instant application fail to additionally disclose or show “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” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 24. Therefore, claim 24 improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 26, which depends from claim 21, recites “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,” and claim 27 depends from claim 26 and recites “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”; however, the examiner further notes that the specification and drawings of the instant application fail to additionally disclose or show each of “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” (emphasis added) and “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” (emphasis added)as recited in claims 26 and 27, respectively. Therefore, claims 26 and 27 improperly include “new matter,” such that the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 28, which depends from claim 21, recites “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”; however, the examiner further notes that the specification and drawings of the instant application fail to additionally disclose or show “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” as recited in claim 28. Therefore, claim 28 improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 38, which depends from claim 32, recites “wherein the non-fuel mass comprises ammonia, ethanol, or methanol”; however, the examiner further notes that the specification and drawings of the instant application fail to additionally disclose or show “wherein the non-fuel mass comprises ammonia, ethanol, or methanol” as recited in claim 38. For example, only ¶ 0012-0013 of the specification of the instant application appears to describe the “non-fuel mass,” and ¶ 0012-0013 of the specification of the instant application does not describe a particular fuel type of the “non-fuel mass.” Therefore, claim 38 improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 39, which depends from claim 32, recites “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”; however, the examiner further notes that the specification and drawings of the instant application fail to additionally disclose or show “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” as recited in claim 39. For example, only ¶ 0012-0013 of the specification of the instant application appears to describe the “non-fuel mass,” and ¶ 0012-0013 of the specification of the instant application does not fully describe “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.” Therefore, claim 39 improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 40 depends from claim 39, such that claim 40 also includes the “new matter” recited by claim 39 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 39 is rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. Evidence that independent claim 32 fails to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in the reply filed 04/28/2026. On page 7 of that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant has stated:
PNG
media_image1.png
150
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim 32 because ¶ 0012 of the specification of the instant application expressly discloses that “In one example, the non-fuel mass is defined as a portion of a combustion mixture that reduces a cylinder temperature. Elements included in the non-fuel mass may function as fuels during some combustion conditions,” such that Applicant expressly intends for the “non-fuel mass” to be unburned fuel of a combustion mixture that reduces a cylinder temperature with respect to combustion of the combustion mixture. Therefore, because Applicant has stated, somewhere other than in the application, as filed, that the invention is something different from what is defined in the claim(s), claim 32 is now indefinite for failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 33-40 depend from claim 32, such that claims 33-40 are also indefinite for at least the same reasons that claim 32 is indefinite and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 32 is rejected.
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, 23, 24, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0404371 to Yerace et al. (hereinafter: “Yerace”).
With respect to claim 21, Yerace teaches a system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3), comprising: a first fuel system (e.g., 232) containing a first fuel (e.g., “liquid fuel,” such as “diesel”) (as depicted by at least Fig. 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0012, 0015-0016, 0035, 0038 & 0040-0041); a second fuel system (e.g., 234) containing a second fuel [e.g., “gaseous fuel,” such as (or inclusive of) “ammonia” and/or “hydrogen”] different from the first fuel (as depicted by at least Fig. 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0012, 0015-0016 & 0036-0041); an engine (104) coupled to the first fuel system and the second fuel system (apparent from at least Fig. 2); and a controller (110) comprising computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory thereof that when executed (as discussed by at least ¶ 0024-0025, 0027 & 0046) enable the controller to: adjust a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based at least in part on a current engine temperature (as depicted by at least Figs. 2, 4 & 5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0012, 0027, 0044-0047, 0049 & 0061, the controller 110 is structured to execute functions to adjustably set a substitution ratio of the first fuel relative to the second fuel based, in part, on a current engine temperature); and adjust the 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 & 5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0046-0048, 0050-0054 & 0057, the controller 110 is structured to execute functions to reduce a substitution ratio from a first ratio to a second ratio, including increasing an amount of the first fuel supplied to the engine 104 via the reduction of the substitution ratio from the first ratio to the second ratio, thereby decreasing (e.g., “adjust”) the current engine temperature to a reduced engine temperature (e.g., “determined engine temperature”) at which detected auto-ignition stops].
With respect to claim 23, Yerace teaches the system of claim 21, wherein 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 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 21).
With respect to claim 24, Yerace 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 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 21, and as discussed by at least ¶ 0012, 0015-0016, 0036 & 0046).
With respect to claim 26, Yerace 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 depicted by at least Figs. 2, 4 & 5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0012, 0025-0026, 0035, 0048-0053, 0056 & 0057, the controller 110 is structured to execute functions to retard (e.g., “adjust”) a liquid fuel injection timing (e.g., “injection timing”) of a liquid fuel injector 226 based, in part, on the current engine temperature exceeding the reduced engine temperature at which the detected auto-ignition stops at times including when auto-ignition of end gases is detected; 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, Yerace 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 in detail above with respect to claim 26; 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, Yerace 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 depicted by at least Figs. 2, 4 & 5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0012, 0025-0026, 0035, 0052-0053, 0056 & 0057, the controller 110 is structured to execute functions to decrease (e.g., “adjust”) the current engine temperature to the reduced engine temperature at which the detected auto-ignition stops further via adjusting a liquid fuel injection timing (e.g., “valve timing”) of a liquid fuel injector 226 (e.g., “valve”); 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 29, Yerace teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to adjust an air/fuel ratio (as discussed by at least ¶ 0064).
With respect to claim 30, Yerace 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 by at least ¶ 0064).
With respect to claim 31, Yerace 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 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 21; 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 Yerace in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0069287 to Lavertu et al. (hereinafter: “Lavertu”).
With respect to claim 22, Yerace 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 ¶ 0021-0022); however, Yerace 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 Yerace 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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerace in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0281615 to Flynn et al. (hereinafter: “Flynn”).
With respect to claim 25, Yerace teaches the system of claim 21; however, Yerace appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the controller is further configured to be responsive to a manifold temperature.
Flynn teaches an analogous system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3), comprising a controller (180) configured to be responsive to a manifold temperature (as depicted by at least Figs. 2, 4 & 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0034, 0036, 0053-0054, 0088, 0097 & 0099, the controller 180 is structured to execute functions to adjust a substitution ratio or adjust an effective compression ratio, in response to an intake manifold temperature).
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 Yerace with the teachings of Flynn, if even necessary, such that the controller is further configured to be responsive to a manifold temperature to beneficially adapt engine operation, including engine operation involving an adjustable substitution ratio, to changing engine operating conditions, including to optimize fuel consumption and/or emission levels (as discussed by at least ¶ 0060 of Flynn).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights