DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/02/2025 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from consideration due to election requirement.
The applicant has canceled claim 10, amended claim 9, and has added claims 14-15.
Currently, claim(s) 9 and 11-15 is/are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The instant specification does not support for premixing before entering infuser/mixer and wherein infuser/mixer bubbles H2 gas into diesel fuel.
The claim currently requires two H2 injection steps (premix and bubbling). However, paragraph [0022] of the instant specification teaches bubble injecting hydrogen gas into the liquid diesel fuel then infusing (mixing) the combination to form a homogenous mixture of hydrogen in liquid diesel fuel. In other words, the premixing is the bubbling. There is no additional bubbling step in the infuser/mixer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rentaro Kuroki of US 2008/0245318 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kuroki) in view of Gerald Peter Jackson of US 2010/0035103 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Jackson) and in view of Morten A. Lund of WO 2017/004551 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lund).
As to claim 9, Kuroki does not explicitly disclose a system for enhancing diesel fuel combustion.
However, Kuroki pertains to the instant invention because Kuroki can be applied to both gasoline and diesel engine (Kuroki, paragraph [0151]).
For the examination purposes, Kuroki’s hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine meets the claim limitation “a system for enhancing diesel fuel combustion” because “liquid hydrocarbon fuel” of Kuroki comprises both gasoline and diesel fuel (Kuroki, paragraph [0151]). Hereinafter, the instant claim rejection applies the analogous reasoning and treats the instant claim limitations “diesel fuel” as “the liquid hydrocarbon fuel” of Kuroki and “diesel engine” as “the internal combustion engine” of Kuroki, at least relying on Kuroki’s teaching in paragraph [0151] above.
Kuroki teaches to a system for enhancing diesel fuel combustion (the hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine 1; Kuroki, paragraph [0035], Fig. 1) by adding reformed hydrogen to diesel fuel (an alternative is to furnish a hydrogen generation device, which generates hydrogen gas by means of steam reforming … to supply hydrogen gas to microbubble generation device 16; Kuroki, paragraph [0087]), comprising:
(a) a liquid diesel fuel tank (fuel tank 15a; Kuroki, paragraph [0054], Figs. 1, 3, 4);
(b) a reformer/hydrogen generation system (hydrogen fuel tank 17a and/or the hydrogen generation device 50; Kuroki, paragraphs [0087], [0113], Figs. 1, 3, 4).
(c) an infuser/mixer (microbubble generation device 52; Kuroki, paragraph [0112]), wherein the infuser/mixer receives the liquid diesel fuel from the liquid diesel fuel tank (Kuroki, paragraph [0112], Fig. 4), and receives the hydrogen gas from the reformer/hydrogen generation system (the hydrogen gas to be mixed into the liquid fuel by the microbubble generation device 52 is supplied from a hydrogen generation device 50 via a hydrogen gas supply line 46; Kuroki, paragraph [0113], Fig. 4), and bubbles the hydrogen gas into the liquid diesel fuel to form a homogeneous mixture of hydrogen gas in liquid diesel fuel (since the microbubble generation device 52 forms the hydrogen gas microbubbles and mixes them into the liquid fuel, the hydrogen gas can be uniformly mixed into the liquid fuel; Kuroki, paragraphs [0019], [0112], [0125]);
(d) a lift pump (fuel pump 32; Kuroki, Fig. 4) for moving the homogeneous mixture of hydrogen gas in liquid diesel fuel out of the infuser/mixer (the fuel injection device 118 is connected to a fuel tank 30 via a fuel supply line 36, wherein the liquid fuel is drawn by a fuel pump 32 for supplying liquid fuel to the fuel injection device 118, and wherein a microbubble device 52 is positioned downstream of the fuel pump 32; Kuroki, paragraphs [0111] – [0112], Fig. 4);
(e) a diesel engine having a combustion chamber (the interior of each cylinder is provided with a combustion chamber 110; Kuroki, paragraph [0109], Fig. 4); and
(f) an injector (the fuel injection device 118; Kuroki, paragraphs [0110] – [0112], Fig. 4) for moving the homogeneous mixture of hydrogen gas in liquid diesel fuel from the lift pump to the combustion chamber.
As to the term “wherein the liquid diesel fuel and the hydrogen gas premix before entering the infuser/mixer” in the step (c) of the instant claim 1, the instant claim fails to show that premixing results in unexpected results.
There is a finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art for mixing a large amount of hydrogen gas into the hydrocarbon fuel so that the mixability of hydrocarbon fuel and hydrogen gas improves, as taught by Kuroki (Kuroki, paragraph [0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art has recognized that the improved mixing between hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel improves the combustion efficiency (Kuroki paragraph [0002]).
There is a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need of supplying homogeneous hydrogen gas and the hydrocarbon fuel into the internal combustion engines for improved efficiency. The instant claim limitation “that the liquid diesel fuel and the hydrogen gas premix before entering the infuser/mixer” amounts to a predictable potential solution because Kuroki teaches to mixing hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel via a microbubble generation device prior to mixing hydrogen gas and the liquid diesel fuel prior to entering an engine (Kuroki, Fig. 1). The homogeneity of hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel is important to a degree that the uniformity is ensured prior to being added to the internal combustion engine of Kuroki. One of ordinary skill in the art could indefinitely add additional mixing steps, even before entering the infuser/mixer, but it would amount to common sense since mixing multiple times results in better uniformity in general. A patent examiner may rely on "common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference (please see MPEP 2143.I.E.).
Kuroki teaches mixing of hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel before the resulting mixture enters the internal combustion engine, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have mixed one or more times based on the well-known importance of homogeneity between added hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel. At least for this reason, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasps, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the instant invention “that the liquid diesel fuel and the hydrogen gas premix before entering the infuser/mixer.
Kuroki does not explicitly disclose “the reformer/hydrogen generation system generates hydrogen gas from the liquid diesel fuel received from the liquid diesel fuel tank” in step (b) above.
Jackson pertains to the instant invention because Jackson relates to improving fuel efficiency by adding hydrogen (Jackson, paragraphs [0017], [0030]).
Jackson teaches to an apparatus for generating hydrogen gas (hydrogen gas outlet 24; Jackson, Fig. 2, paragraph [0023]) from the liquid diesel fuel received from the liquid diesel fuel tank (fuel tank 44, wherein Jackson teaches that diesel fuel can be used without any changes to the engine; Jackson, paragraph [0029], Fig. 6). Jackson teaches that the generated hydrogen gas can be used for fueling an internal combustion engine (Jackson, claim 28).
Both Kuroki and Jackson relate to improving fuel efficiency by adding hydrogen (Jackson, paragraphs [0017], [0030]). Kuroki does not explicitly teach “the reformer/hydrogen generation system generates hydrogen gas from the liquid diesel fuel received from the liquid diesel fuel tank.” Kuroki does teach a reformer/hydrogen generation system (hydrogen fuel tank 17a and/or the hydrogen generation device 50; Kuroki, paragraphs [0087], [0113], Figs. 1, 3, 4). Jackson teaches that hydrogen gas generated from liquid diesel fuel received from the liquid diesel fuel tank may be used for an internal combustion engine (please see above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the system of Kuroki with the hydrogen gas of Jackson for improving fuel efficiency by adding hydrogen (Jackson, paragraphs [0017], [0030]).
Kuroki in view of Jackson still reads into the claim limitation because Kuroki in view of Jackson teaches to the system of claim 9, wherein a first portion of diesel fuel in a diesel fuel tank passes directly into the reformer/hydrogen system (Jackson, paragraph [0029] and Fig. 6) and a second portion of a diesel fuel in a diesel fuel tank passes directly into the infuser/mixer (the second fuel supply path 15d connected to the microbubble generation device 16; Kuroki, paragraph [0058], Fig. 1).
Kuroki in view of Jackson provides reasons for passing a diesel fuel directly into the reformer/hydrogen system (to generate hydrogen gas, which is taught to increase fuel efficiency upon addition of hydrogen gas into liquid diesel fuel) and into the infuser/mixer (to provide uniform mixture upon addition of hydrogen gas into the liquid diesel fuel).
Kuroki in view of Jackson does not explicitly teach to splitting the supply of liquid diesel fuel into a first portion and a second portion (i.e., using the same diesel fuel source for direct combustion as well as the source for making the hydrogen supply).
Lund pertains to the instant invention because Lund relates to improving the efficiency of combustion processes using hydrogen gas (Lund, paragraph [0001]).
Lund teaches a tank or other source of hydrocarbon liquid 126, wherein hydrocarbon liquid may be diesel (Lund, paragraph [0006]). Lund teaches an embodiment in which a hydrocarbon liquid inlet 102 of the tank 126 directly passes into gas processing unit 108 (Lund, paragraph [0037], Fig. 1) that produces collected hydrogen gas (Lund, paragraph [0010]). Gas processing unit 108 reads into reformer/hydrogen generation system, and at least one infusion tube 112 reads into infuser/mixer. Alternative embodiments are taught by Lund, wherein the tank 126 directly passes hydrocarbon liquid into the infusion tube 112 (Lund, paragraph [0045], Fig. 3). Lund teaches that any of the embodiments may be combined (Lund, paragraph [0045]) for achieving homogeneous blending (Lund, paragraph [0046]). Combination of the alternative embodiments of Lund would have resulted in splitting the supply of liquid diesel fuel into a first portion and a second portion, and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it as a routine experimentation because a particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (please refer to MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation by combining the system of Kuroki in view of Jackson with the alternative embodiments of Lund for improving the efficiency of combustion processes using hydrogen gas (Lund, paragraph [0001]).
As to claim 11, Kuroki in view of Jackson teaches to the system of claim 9, further comprising:
a hydrogen buffer tank (a hydrogen fuel tank 17a; Kuroki, paragraph [0064]).
Kuroki in view of Jackson does not explicitly teach that the hydrogen buffer tank 17a is placed between the reformer/hydrogen generation system and the infuser/mixer (i.e., a specific sequence of the said system elements).
However, Kuroki in view of Jackson teaches an alternative to furnish a hydrogen generation device, which generates hydrogen gas by means for reforming (Kuroki, paragraph [0087]). Based on the teaching of Kuroki in view of Jackson, one of ordinary skill in the art would have simply placed a reformer for generating hydrogen gas in a prior step to reaching the hydrogen fuel tank 17a.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have arrived at the instant invention because a particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable sequence of the said system elements might be characterized as routine experimentation (please refer to MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)).
As to claim 12, Kuroki in view of Jackson teaches to the system of claim 9, further comprising:
an air inlet into the combustion chamber (when the intake valve 7 opens, air is taken into the combustion chamber 2; Kuroki, paragraph [0037]).
As to claim 13, Kuroki in view of Jackson teaches to the system of claim 9, wherein the reformer/hydrogen generation system is any one of:
a steam reforming system (an alternative is to furnish hydrogen generation device, which generates hydrogen gas by means of steam reforming of methanol, gasoline, or the like, Kuroki, paragraph [0087]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rentaro Kuroki of US 2008/0245318 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kuroki) in view of Gerald Peter Jackson of US 2010/0035103 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Jackson) and Morten A. Lund of WO 2017/004551 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lund) as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Tartakovsky, Leonid, and Moshe Sheintuch, "Fuel reforming in internal combustion engines." Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 67 (2018): 88-114 (hereinafter referred to as Tartakovsky).
As to claim 14, Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund does not explicitly teach “wherein the reformer/hydrogen generation system is heated by the diesel engine.”
Tartakovsky pertains to the instant invention because Tartakovsky relates to exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) in contexts of fuel reforming in internal combustion engines (Tartakovsky, abstract).
Tartakovsky teaches that the reformer is heated by the diesel engine (Tartakovsky, Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Tartakovsky
Both Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund and Tartakovsky relate to fuel reforming in internal combustion engine (Tartakovsky, abstract). Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund does not explicitly teach heating by exhaust from diesel engine. Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund does teach using reformers with internal combustion engine (Kuroki, paragraphs [0087], [0113], Figs. 1, 3, 4). Tartakovsky teaches heating the reformer/hydrogen generation system for maximally utilizing the engine waste heat (Tartakovsky, pg. 92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund with the heating of Tartakovsky for increasing fuel efficiency (Tartakovsky, pg. 95).
As to claim 15, Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund does not explicitly teach “wherein the reformer/hydrogen generation system can either be: discarded as waste, or returned to the diesel fuel tank.”
Tartakovsky teaches that “the hydrogen-rich reformate is usually recirculated into the intake (Tartakovsky, pg. 95, Fig. 7) for providing fuel efficient reforming process (Tartakovsky, pg. 95).
Both Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund and Tartakovsky relate to fuel reforming in internal combustion engine (Tartakovsky, abstract). Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund does not explicitly teach recirculation by exhaust from diesel engines. Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund does teach using reformers with internal combustion engine (Kuroki, paragraphs [0087], [0113], Figs. 1, 3, 4). Tartakovsky teaches EGR or REGR for heating the reformer/hydrogen generation system for increasing fuel efficiency (Tartakovsky, pg. 95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Kuroki in view of Jackson and Lund with the heating of Tartakovsky for increasing fuel efficiency (Tartakovsky, pg. 95).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of 12, the applicant asserts that claim 9, as amended, overcomes the prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rentaro Kuroki of US 2008/0245318 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kuroki) in view of Gerald Peter Jackson of US 2010/0035103 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Jackson) and Morten A. Lund of WO 2017/004551 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lund) because claim 9, as amended, recites terms “wherein the liquid diesel fuel and the hydrogen gas premix before entering the infuser/mixer,” “first portion of the diesel fuel leaves the diesel fuel tank and passes directly into the reformer/hydrogen generation system,” and “second portion of the diesel fuel simultaneously leaves the diesel fuel tank and passes directly into the infuser/mixer.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As to the term “wherein the liquid diesel fuel and the hydrogen gas premix before entering the infuser/mixer” in the step (c) of the instant claim 1, the instant claim fails to show that premixing results in unexpected results.
There is a finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art for mixing a large amount of hydrogen gas into the hydrocarbon fuel so that the mixability of hydrocarbon fuel and hydrogen gas improves, as taught by Kuroki (Kuroki, paragraph [0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art has recognized that the improved mixing between hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel improves the combustion efficiency (Kuroki paragraph [0002]).
There is a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need of supplying homogeneous hydrogen gas and the hydrocarbon fuel into the internal combustion engines for improved efficiency. The instant claim limitation “that the liquid diesel fuel and the hydrogen gas premix before entering the infuser/mixer” amounts to a predictable potential solution because Kuroki teaches to mixing hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel via a microbubble generation device prior to mixing hydrogen gas and the liquid diesel fuel prior to entering an engine (Kuroki, Fig. 1). The homogeneity of hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel is important to a degree that the uniformity is ensured prior to being added to the internal combustion engine of Kuroki. One of ordinary skill in the art could indefinitely add additional mixing steps, even before entering the infuser/mixer, but it would amount to common sense since mixing multiple times results in better uniformity in general. A patent examiner may rely on "common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference (please see MPEP 2143.I.E.).
Kuroki teaches mixing of hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel before the resulting mixture enters the internal combustion engine, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have mixed one or more times based on the well-known importance of homogeneity between added hydrogen gas and hydrocarbon fuel. At least for this reason, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasps, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the instant invention “that the liquid diesel fuel and the hydrogen gas premix before entering the infuser/mixer.
On page 10 of 12, the applicant asserts that the Applicant’s system and Lund’s system are not equivalent because “the Lund system diverts unused hydrogen gas from the infuser back into the infuser,” whereas the Applicant’s system splits diesel fuel into: (1) diesel fuel sent straight to the infuser; and (2) diesel fuel sent straight into a hydrogen producing reformer. However, the applicant is reminded that, even if the Applicant’s system and Lund’s system are not equivalent, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art is based on obviousness.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rentaro Kuroki of US 2008/0245318 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kuroki) in view of Gerald Peter Jackson of US 2010/0035103 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Jackson) and Morten A. Lund of WO 2017/004551 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lund) as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Tartakovsky, Leonid, and Moshe Sheintuch, "Fuel reforming in internal combustion engines." Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 67 (2018): 88-114 (hereinafter referred to as Tartakovsky).
Please refer to the rejection above.
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 JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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 LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794