DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amended claims filed on 5/24/2026.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pedder et al. (US 2022/0163005).
As to claim 1 Pedder discloses an engine apparatus (figure 2) comprising an engine (fig. 2 #104) and a control unit (fig. 2 #110), wherein the engine apparatus is driven by fuels comprising at least one of a gaseous fuel (figure 2 #234) and a liquid
fuel, (figure 2 #232) the fuels being inputted into a combustion chamber (figure 2 #200)
of the engine.
wherein the control unit (fig. 2 #110) determines a dangerous region (See figure 7 the danger zone would be #720 and 730 the action regions and paragraph 0119. When the combustion moves into these regions the controller reacts to move the cycle outside these regions.) where abnormal combustion (knock) is predicted, wherein the abnormal combustion comprises engine knocking (abstract) and the dangerous region is preset
(Paragraph 0118, "The plot may be determined by logic of an engine controller, such as the controller described in detail above with reference to FIG. 1, and stored in memory thereof.")
Being that the logic is stored in the memory the preset danger zones 720/730 are stored and the fact that the controller can update the presets does not change the fact that they are stored and used as the next set of presets.
(Paragraph 0017 "Further, in some embodiments, the adjustments to the substitution ratio may be stored as reference values for a specific state in which the multi-fuel engine is operating.") (Finally paragraph 0120, "The decision space may be fully defined based on a plurality of preset values for the specific engine operating state. For example, the plurality of preset values may include an upper knock rate tolerance 701 and a lower knock rate tolerance 702, each defined around an expected knock rate (not shown) and defining a nominal deadzone therebetween (e.g., within which knock rates are expected to deviate under substantially typical engine operating conditions). To determine a space outside of the nominal (expected) deadzone within which knock rates may be permitted to at least transiently stray, the plurality of preset values may further include a target maximum action limit 703 and a target minimum action limit 704.")
and the dangerous region is preset with respect to the mixed combustion ratio (multi fueled) of the gaseous fuel contained in the fuels (paragraph 0117) which are inputted into the combustion chamber, and
Para. [0017] "Further, in some embodiments, the adjustments to the substitution ratio may be stored as reference values for a specific state in which the multi-fuel engine is operating."
Para. [0070] "By adaptively determining the confidence interval with each substitution ratio adjustment in this way, statistical trends in knocking may be more consistently predicted over time for a given substitution ratio."
Para. [0073] "Dynamic adjustments to the substitution ratio may be stored in non-transitory memory of an engine controller as reference values for the specific engine operating state. Accordingly, when the specific engine operating state is again requested following engine shutoff or a period at another engine operating state, a most recently refined substitution ratio may remain a part of a known set of engine operating conditions by which the engine operating state may be defined. In this way, a life of the engine may be increased while reducing fueling costs, as periodic updates to engine operating states may be calibrated to maximize the substitution ratio under a constraint of minimal knocking."
Para. [0086] "If the knock rate is determined to be statistically outside of an expected range, the statistical knock rate control feedback loop may command an adjustment to a reference substitution ratio for the cylinder in the set of known engine operating conditions for the specific engine operating state such that knocking may be mitigated in the long term. Specifically, since the reference substitution ratio may be adjusted via the statistical knock rate control feedback loop, each subsequent combustion cycle for the specific engine operating state may accordingly execute adjusted baseline fueling for the cylinder (at least until the reference substitution ratio is adjusted again or the timer for the specific engine operating state exceeds the threshold duration)."
Para. [0103] "The specific engine operating state may correspond to a set of known engine operating conditions stored in memory of the engine controller, which may include a base substitution ratio. However, the specific engine operating state may in actuality be executed based on the set of known engine operating conditions adjusted for one or more actual engine operating conditions. For example, the specific engine operating state may further correspond to a reference substitution ratio, the reference substitution ratio being based on, in one embodiment, the base substitution ratio adjusted according to one or more actual engine operating conditions."
Para. [0132] "The statistical knock rate control loop may command adjustments to the substitution ratio on a relatively slow timescale, such that increases or decreases to the substitution ratio are made only when a determined knock rate strays outside of a confidence interval of a "no action" deadband (e.g., during and/or preceding mild or moderate knock events). Since the determined knock rate may normalize a number of knock events over a number of combustion cycles and since the confidence intervals may be periodically updated, only statistically significant deviations from expected values may result in adjustments to the substitution ratio. A technical effect of using a statistical model to adjust the substitution ratio as provided herein is that even mild and moderate knock may be adaptively mitigated through dynamic, data-driven updates to both the statistical model and reference values defining the various engine operating states (e.g., the adjusted substitution ratio may be employed to update a reference substitution ratio for a given engine operating state, such that knock may be mitigated in the long term)."
Also note on paragraph 0133 that the intention of the control is to mitigate the knock to avoid the danger region (720) so below the knock in figure 7 being adjusted to try to avoid the danger region-
Para [0117] Referring now to FIG. 7, a plot 700 depicting a decision space for determining adjustments to a substitution ratio of a multi-fuel engine based on a detected knock rate is showed. Specifically, the multi-fuel engine may include a plurality of cylinders configured for multi-fuel operation, such as in the engine described in detail above with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2.
the control unit regulates operation to avoid the dangerous region (720 and 730) when the engine is operated (paragraph 00119 and 0120).
Paragraph 0120 discloses the decision space were in knock is expected under typical operation conditions (between 701 and 702) and transiently stray or outside of the expected zone (703 and 704 respectfully called the target action maximum and minimum limit).
Paragraph 0127 discloses the engine controller commanding a decrease in the substitution ratio as the knock reaches the command decrease zone stopping the knock. (See the example 721 (called the second exemplary trajectory) it is ended as soon as it reaches the zone it does not cross into the zone it reaches the boundary of the zone and resets the mixture to reset the knock and the knock count never crosses into the zone therefore it avoids the zone/dangerous region.
[0127] The second exemplary trajectory gradually increases above the upper knock rate tolerance as knock events accumulate during combustion cycling, the second exemplary trajectory hovering around the upper knock rate tolerance until the knock rate increases to the target maximum action limit and reaches the "command decrease" zone (and each of the knock count and the combustion cycle count are commanded by the engine controller to be reset). Upon reaching the "command decrease" zone, the second exemplary trajectory ends and the engine controller commands a decrease to the substitution ratio. In this way, the engine controller may command a decrease to the substitution ratio as the knock rate increases (e.g., above a threshold value, such as the target maximum action limit).
To Summarize see the below modified figure 7. The dangerous region is 720 and 730. The knock rates are shown as 711, 721 and 731. Each rate is designed to avoid regions 720 and 730 by trying to stay within the greyed area 710 (paragraph 0119). The applicant respectfully argues that by “reaching” they region 720 or 730 it has not avoided the region. But it is also true that the prior arts control systems purpose of operation is to avoid those regions (720 and 730). This is made clear in the figure 7 as the operation is intended to remain in the dead zone 710 and makes a reset when it reaches 720 or 730. Not that it only reaches the danger zone in 721 and not in the other examples 711 and 731 and even when it reaches in 721 it resets to avoid the region. Thus the limitation is met as the prior art purpose is for “the control unit regulates operation to avoid the dangerous region when the engine is operated”. Even when in operation if the engine happens to reach into the danger region it will immediately reset the control parameters to remove itself from the region. In the example below only one instance is shown were the controls reach the dangerous region and illustrates a strategy in the example to avoid crossing that threshold into the actual region. In all the other examples the controls does not reach the danger region threshold. Disclosing the purpose of not reaching the dangerous region and avoiding crossing into the dangerous region.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2 Pedder discloses the engine apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the engine is operated while a mixed combustion ratio is changed, the control unit (figure 2 #110) regulates operation by executing an avoidance control which avoids the dangerous region. (Paragraph 0014)
Conversely, since il knock-free regimes of the engine cylinders may define a desirable range for the substitution ratio (e.g., such that the multi-fuel engine may meet or exceed an expected reliability and an expected useful life thereof), knock may be monitored as an indicator of the substitution ratio being outside of the desirable range.
The prior art has a desirable range which means it wants to stay in that range and out of the undesirable range/dangerous region.
Also shown in figure 7 there is a danger region #720 and 730 to which the mixture ration is adjusted.
As to claim 3 Pedder discloses the engine apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the dangerous region is preset in a relation between an engine load (torque output) and the mixed combustion ratio. (Paragraph 0003).
As to claim 4 Pedder discloses the engine apparatus according to claim 2, wherein executing the avoidance comprises restricting, a change in the mixed combustion ratio is restricted to avoid the dangerous region. (See figure 7 the system avoids the restricted zones #720 and #730)
As to claim 5 Pedder discloses the engine apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in executing the avoidance control, at least one of an injection pressure of the liquid fuel, an injection timing of the liquid fuel, the number of injections of the liquid fuel, an injection pressure of the gaseous fuel, an injection timing of the gaseous fuel, and engine power is changed. (Paragraph 0059)
The fueling request may be passed from 306 to 308 as a plurality of fueling commands indicative of amounts, timings, and durations for fuel injection for each of the primary (e.g., liquid) and secondary (e.g., gaseous) fuels based on the substitution ratio for each cylinder. At the engine, the fuel injection may be executed by a plurality of actuators (e.g., valves, injectors, etc.; see FIGS. 1 and 2) in accordance with the plurality of fueling commands.
As to claim 6 Pedder discloses the engine apparatus according claim 2, wherein in executing the avoidance control, at least one of an intake air temperature in the combustion chamber, an intake air pressure in the combustion chamber, an amount of intake air in the combustion chamber, and a specific heat of intake air in the combustion chamber is changed. (Paragraph 0133) and (prior art claims 16 and 17)
Thus, embodiments provided herein may mitigate or entirely eliminate mild, moderate, and severe knocking via a combination of reactive transient adjustments to one or more current engine operating conditions and dynamic updates to one or more reference engine operating conditions for various engine operating states, responsive to deviations of knock rates from expected values. In additional or alternative embodiments, a current or reference fuel substitution ratio may be adjusted responsive to deviations of one or more other engine operating conditions (e.g., MAT, ambient pressure, etc.) from respective expected values according to the plurality of feedback loops described herein, such that knocking may be mitigated while still retaining a relatively low order approximation of further, less controllable engine operating conditions. Further, though one embodiment provided herein is described in the context of adjusting a current or reference fuel substitution ratio to prevent knocking, other embodiments are not limited to substitution ratio adjustment, and may be applied to one or more further current and/or reference engine operating conditions, such as inlet air temperature, diesel injection timing (e.g., in a diesel engine), spark timing (e.g., in a gasoline spark-ignition engine), and rail pressure (e.g., in a direct injection engine). For example, one or more current engine operating conditions may be adjusted in a gasoline spark-ignition engine, resulting in a current spark timing being adjusted responsive to one or more of a knock rate, a manifold air temperature, and an ambient pressure (e.g., deviating from respective expected values) so as to mitigate detected knocking. In this way, one or more engine operating conditions may be optimized while mitigating knock across a broad range of severity.
As to claim 7 Pedder discloses the engine apparatus according to claim 2, wherein when the mixed combustion ratio is changed, when there is the dangerous region between the current mixed combustion ratio and the target mixed combustion ratio, as the avoidance control, the mixed combustion ratio is changed by avoiding the mixed combustion ratio within the dangerous region.
The system will avoid knock if the knock happens in a region between the current combustion ratio it will avoid the knock therefore avoiding that region.
As to claim 8 the engine apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the gaseous fuel is hydrogen. (Paragraph 0021)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant claims the prior art does not does not avoid the dangerous region, but instead actively permits knocking. The applicant’s claims does not restrict all knocking. And therefore this argument is mute. The prior art has two dangerous regions as disclosed above.
The dangerous regions are regions with damaging excessive knocking and the prior art avoids those by changing engine operation parameters.
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 SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights