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 . This office action is responsive to the Amendment filed May 15, 2026 (herein referred to as “Amendment”). As directed by the Amendment Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, and 11 are amended. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration via Restriction Requirement dated November 6, 2025. Claims 1-12 have been fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Amendment), with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12 under Section 102 in view of Rueger (FR 2851013 B1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Dames et al. (U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2016/0281624, herein “Dames”).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dames et al. (U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2016/0281624, herein “Dames”).
Regarding Claim 1, Dames discloses a system for injecting fuel into an internal combustion engine (see paragraph [0301]), wherein the system includes an engine cylinder (see paragraph [0301]), a fuel injector (3) configured to inject a fuel into the engine cylinder (inherent function of any known vehicle fuel injector), a sensor configured to output a signal indicative of a condition associated with the combustion of fuel in the engine cylinder (see paragraphs [0300] - [0306], “in-cylinder sensors measuring combustion parameters or pressure”), and a controller (see paragraph [0022]) configured to generate commands for an injection of the fuel into the internal combustion engine; receive the signal from the sensor; and generate adjusted commands for a current amplitude, a start of current time, an end of current time, a duration of a pull-in current, a duration of a keep-in current, or a duration of a hold-in current, for a subsequent injection of the fuel into the internal combustion engine, based on the signal from the sensor (see paragraphs [00025] - [0027] “control unit may be configured to apply a drive waveform to the electromagnet coil comprising a turn-on portion having a start and an end and having a profile such that, at the end of the turn-on portion, the armature is at rest at a predetermined position between the first and second positions or at the second position, and current through the electromagnetic coil equals a hold current and a hold portion following the turn-on portion having a profile such that the armature is held, at rest, at the predetermined position in the voltage mode. The turn-on portion may also be referred to as the “valve opening portion” or simply “opening portion”. The turn-on portion may also be referred to as the “valve lifting portion” or simply “lifting portion”. The drive waveform may further comprise a turn-off portion following the hold portion, the close portion having a start and an end and having a profile such that, at the end of the turn-off portion, the armature is at the first position. The control unit may be configured, during some or all of the turn-off portion, to apply no bias. During the turn-off portion, a negative voltage may appear across the coil due to a back emf”).
Regarding Claim 2, Dames discloses the sensor is an in-cylinder sensor (see paragraphs [0300] - [0306], “in-cylinder sensors measuring combustion parameters or pressure”).
Regarding Claim 7, Dames discloses that the controller is configured to generate the adjusted commands in response to identifying combustion variability based on in-cylinder pressure that is indicated by the signal (see paragraph [0301], “[f]eedback can be used to correct the lift for changes caused by fuel line pressure, cylinder pressure and injector performance. This might be used to tune the air/fuel ratio in the cylinders by adjusting the amount of fuel injected by the injectors by altering the partial lift point. Indeed, closed loop control can be used to derive voltage drive parameters which can be used to adjust boost pulse length and, optionally, other features of the drive profile, using the measured information”).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dames in view of Rueger (FR 2851013 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, Dames discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent concerning injecting a pilot fuel and primary fuel as recited.
However, 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). Rueger discloses a controller (160) 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).
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 Dames by using a pilot fuel and primary fuel as described in Rueger in order to ensure reliable, stable, and efficient ignition of the main fuel charge.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are allowed.
Claims 3, 5, and 6 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 engine control systems.
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 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