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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the flow of air" in the 1st line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 14-17, 19, 21, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al (US 2008/0223344 hereinafter “Suzuki”).
In regards to claim 14:
Suzuki teaches a method for operating an internal combustion engine (2) which comprises at least one cylinder with a combustion chamber (10) in which hydrogen fuel (via injector 18) is combusted with air (from intake passage 4), wherein in the combustion chamber (10), at least a flow of the hydrogen (via injector 18), at least in sections, carries out a rotational movement about at least one axis perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the at least one cylinder, wherein as the fuel sprays from the fuel injector (18) and impacts the piston (8), a portion of the fuel flow will flow laterally which is a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cylinder, wherein the rotational movement of the flow about the axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the at least one cylinder is induced by feeding in of the hydrogen, wherein as fuel flows from the injector (18), impacts the piston’s (8) top surface, it will flow laterally and upwardly in a rotational movement guided in sections along a cylinder inner wall, wherein the cylinder inner wall is comprised of an infinite number of sections and the fuel flowing through the cylinder will carry out its momentum through the combustion chamber from the injector to the piston top surface and along the inner cylinder wall.
In regards to claim 15:
Suzuki teaches the hydrogen is fed directly into the combustion chamber of the at least one cylinder (via injector 18).
In regards to claim 16:
Suzuki teaches a flow of air carries out a rotational movement about the longitudinal axis at least in sections and at least temporarily in the combustion chamber. Wherein air is fed through intake passage (4), the mass of air impacting the piston, forcing the air to move rotationally laterally and upwardly along the cylinder walls, and only temporarily in the combustion chamber, wherein as the air is used for combustion, it is exhausted out via exhaust passage (6).
In regards to claim 17:
Suzuki teaches the flow of hydrogen fed in impinges at least in sections on at least one surface section. Wherein impinge is defined as “to strike” (via search “impinge” at www.merriam-webster.com), and wherein the hydrogen fed will strike a plurality of sections of the cylinder and piston surface.
In regards to claim 19:
Suzuki teaches the flow of fed in hydrogen is guided along a plurality of surface sections.
In regards to claim 21:
Suzuki teaches the internal combustion is spark-ignited (via ignition plug 16).
In regards to claim 24:
Suzuki teaches the internal combustion engine comprises a feeding device (18) for feeding in the hydrogen, which comprises at least one movable section which is movable with respect to the combustion chamber, wherein all fuel injectors have movable internal parts to convey fuel from the inlet to the fuel injector outlet, furthermore the entirety of the fuel injector is movable with respect to the combustion chamber, wherein the fuel injector is moved and disposed of when replaced.
In regards to claim 25:
Suzuki teaches a control device (50) configured to carry out the operation of an internal combustion engine (2).
In regards to claim 26:
Suzuki teaches an internal combustion engine (20) with a control device (50).
In regards to claim 27:
Suzuki teaches at least one cylinder with a combustion chamber (10) in which hydrogen fuel can be combusted with air, a piston (8) which bounds the combustion chamber, and a feeding device (18) for feeding in hydrogen to the combustion chamber such that a jet emerging from the feeding device impinges on a piston surface facing the combustion chamber and a flow of hydrogen is guided along the piston surface, wherein the piston surface has a deflection section which continues to deflect hydrogen flow guided along the piston surface in a guided manner towards a cylinder inner wall with a movement component in a direction of a cylinder head of the internal combustion engine. Wherein any piston head surface will deflect a flow of fuel that is directed at it, and any fuel that hits a piston head surface will be guided towards a cylinder inner wall, wherein the cylinder inner wall encapsulates the combustion chamber.
In regards to claim 28:
Suzuki teaches a program to control the internal combustion engine (Paragraph [0075]).
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.
Claims 18, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Prumm (US 2020/0277907).
In regards to claim 18:
Suzuki teaches the jet emerging from the feeding device impinges on the surface section at a distance, but does not teach the distance is greater than 0.9 times and less than 1.2 times a stroke length of the piston bounding the combustion chamber.
Prumm teaches a fuel injector providing a jet of fuel (P2) that impinges on a surface of a piston at a distance greater than 0.9 times and less than 1.2 times a stroke length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the fuel injection of Suzuki occur near a bottom dead center of the piston as taught by Prumm in order to provide a high-power density mixture (Paragraph [0074]). Although Prumm does not recite a stroke length, Prumm recites the language of a second bottom dead center, which is when the piston is at a distance farthest from a top dead center. Prumm further recites that the injection can occur based on crank angle degrees after a bottom dead center, such as 5 degrees of crank angle after a bottom dead center (Paragraph [0078]). Furthermore 5 degrees is roughly 2.78% of 180 degrees of crank angle (180 degrees of crank angle required to go from bottom dead center to top dead center), and an increment of stroke length increasing up to the midpoint, wherein at 90 degrees crank angle 1 degree of crank angle will provide the highest percentage of stroke length due to a majority of the rotation of the crankshaft translating into vertical motion of the piston at the halfway mark between bottom dead center and top dead center.
In regards to claim 20:
Suzuki teaches a flow of hydrogen impinges on at least one surface section at least from a point in time. Suzuki does not specify the point in time to be at which the combustion chamber is closed and a quantity of air intended for the air/hydrogen mixture is to be combusted is completely in the combustion chamber.
Prumm teaches a flow of hydrogen (P2) into the combustion chamber after the intake valve is closed and the combustion chamber is closed and the air/hydrogen mixture to be combusted is completely in the combustion chamber (Figure 1, plots 14 and 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the flow of hydrogen in the combustion chamber of Suzuki at a time when the combustion chamber is closed as taught by Prumm in order to provide a high-power density mixture (Paragraph [0074]).
In regards to claim 23:
Suzuki teaches the flow of hydrogen impinges at least in sections but does not specify the flow during at least temporarily in a compression stroke angle before a top dead center of a piston bounding the combustion chamber on at least one surface section.
Prumm teaches a fuel injector providing a jet of fuel (P2) that impinges on a surface of a piston during a compression stroke angle before a top dead center of a piston.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the fuel injection of Suzuki occur during a compression stroke as taught by Prumm in order to provide a high-power density mixture (Paragraph [0074]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Hilger et al (US 2004/0069267 hereinafter “Hilger”).
In regards to claim 22:
Suzuki does not specify the jet of the fed hydrogen has an opening angle of at most 25 degrees.
Hilger teaches a jet of hydrogen fuel having an opening angle less than 25 degrees (Paragraphs [0057], [0098], and [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the opening angle of the fed hydrogen of Suzuki to be at most 25 degrees as taught by Hilger in order to provide uniform distribution (Paragraph [0098]. Adjusting fuel spray angles are known in the art and are often changed depending on but not limited to factors such as combustion chamber geometry, piston geometry, and fuel distribution.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Bidner et al (US 2014/0331970 hereinafter “Bidner”).
In regards to claim 29:
Suzuki is silent to a computer-readable storage medium on which the program is stored.
Bidner teaches a computer-readable storage medium on which a program is stored (Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the location of the programs of Suzuki to be on a computer-readable storage medium as taught by Bidner in order to store programs that are executable by the computer (Paragraph [0040]) of Bidner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3 of Remarks, filed 8/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references. New art has been applied that teaches a hydrogen injector that injects hydrogen fuel into a combustion chamber, and language has been added to clarify the position of the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747