DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is responsive to the Response to Restriction Requirement filed January 2, 2026. As directed by the election: Claims 1-12 are elected for prosecution on the merits WITHOUT TRAVERSE and Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) dated July 19, 2024 and November 5, 2025 are noted. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 4 each recite “generate adjusted commands”. Examiner suggests amending this each instance to read --generate the adjusted commands-- to avoid antecedent basis concerns. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rueger (FR 2851013 B1). Note: reference to the text of Rueger is directed to the machine translation provided herewith.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Rueger discloses a system and method for injecting fuel into an internal combustion engine (see page 1, lines 19-22), wherein the system includes an engine cylinder (see page 3, line 48), a fuel injector (131) configured to inject a fuel into the engine cylinder, a sensor (sensors (140), (165), and lambda probe, see page 3, lines 23-25) configured to output a signal indicative of a condition associated with the combustion of fuel in the engine cylinder. Rueger discloses a controller (160) configured to [1] generate commands (signals (A)) for an injection of the fuel into the internal combustion engine (pre-injection (205)), [2] receive the signal from the sensor (see page 5, lines 7-12), and generate adjusted commands for a current amplitude (“variation amplitude” see page 6, lines 1-12 and line 49 - page 7, line 5) for a subsequent injection (main injection (200)) of the fuel into the internal combustion engine, based on the signal from the sensor.
Regarding Claim 4, Rueger discloses that controller (160) is configured to inject a pilot fuel (pre-injection (205)) and a primary fuel (main injection (200) and to generate adjusted commands for injecting at least the pilot fuel (see page 6, lines 1-12).
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, Rueger discloses that the adjusted commands for the subsequent injection of the fuel include an adjustment to a current amplitude (“variation amplitude” see page 6, lines 1-12 and line 49 - page 7, line 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Rueger discloses that the commands for injections of the fuel following the first injection are adjusted iteratively (see Figure 4a and page 7, lines 1-15, “step 320, repeated if necessary several times”).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rueger in view of Damitz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,421,331, herein “Damitz”).
Regarding Claims 2 7, and 11, Rueger discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent concerning the use of in-cylinder pressure as a factor for adjusting fuel injection.
However, Damitz discloses “a method for operating an internal combustion engine, particularly of a motor vehicle. The internal combustion engine has a combustion chamber and an injection valve by which fuel is able to be supplied to the combustion chamber, directly or via an intake manifold. In the method, a maximum combustion chamber pressure and a signal for a start of the injection of fuel is determined, and the signal for the start of injection is influenced as a function of the maximum combustion chamber pressure” (see Abstract). Damitz discloses that a signal for an injection duration of fuel is determined and influenced as a function of the maximum combustion chamber pressure (see Abstract). Damitz discloses that the controller is further configured to generate the adjusted commands in response to identifying combustion variability based on in-cylinder pressure that is indicated by the signal (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Rueger by using in-cylinder pressure as a factor for adjusting fuel injection as described in Damitz in order to obtain a more direct measurement of the combustion event.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, various references are cited that provide detail of relevant fuel injection systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G MOUBRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM - 6:30PM.
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, Lindsay M. Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights