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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: combustion chamber pressure controller in claims 1, 10-11 & 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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) 1-18 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 & 102a2 as being anticipated by Klingbeil et. al. (US 10,683,796 B2).
Klingbeil ‘796 discloses the invention as follows:
1. An internal combustion engine arrangement (fig. 1) for a vehicle, the internal combustion engine arrangement comprising an internal combustion engine 110 comprising a reciprocating piston 117 connected to a crankshaft 119 arranged in a crankcase 115, and a combustion chamber 113, wherein the crankcase 115 and the combustion chamber 113 are arranged on a respective side, in a reciprocating direction, of the reciprocating piston 117, a combustion chamber pressure controller (e.g., supplemental boost supply 140, 340, 440; see fig. 1; col. 3, ln. 40-56 and col. 4, ln. 33-55) arranged in fluid communication with the combustion chamber 113 and configured to control a pressure level in the combustion chamber 113, and a control unit (e.g., processing unit 120; fig. 1) comprising processing circuitry (col. 6, ln. 54-67), the processing circuitry being configured to: determine a pressure level (implicitly taught; see disclosure below) in the combustion chamber 113, determine a pressure level (implicitly taught; see disclosure below) in the crankcase 115, and control the combustion chamber pressure controller 140, 340, 440 in response to a difference between the pressure level in the combustion chamber 113 and the pressure level in the crankcase 115 being below a predetermined threshold limit.
Note, Klingbeil discloses in col. 5, ln. 24-42 and col. 6, ln. 35-38 the following: “When the engine 110 is running under load or above idle, pressure in the combustion portion 113 of the cylinder 112 is generally sufficient for proper seating of the rings 220 and to prevent most or all of the oil in the crankcase portion 115 from entering the combustion portion 113. However, when the engine 110 is at idle, the pressure differential between the combustion portion 113 and the crankcase portion 115 resulting from use of air only from a conventional intake system and reduction in crankcase evacuation may not be sufficient to properly seat the rings 220 and/or prevent or sufficiently inhibit oil from entering the combustion portion 113 from the crankcase portion 115. Accordingly, as schematically depicted in FIG. 1, the supplemental boost supply 140 is used in various embodiments to provide the supplemental air supply 141 to increase the pressure in the combustion portion 113 in an amount sufficient to prevent or inhibit entry of oil from the crankcase portion 115 to the combustion portion 113 while at idle.”, and “The processing unit 120 in various embodiments receives feedback from one or more sensors configured to detect one or more parameters of the system 100.”.
Thus, it is clear that Klingbeil implicitly teaches the steps of determining both the pressures of the combustion chamber 113 and crankcase 115 using feedback from one or more sensors as clearly suggested and disclosed above in order to determine whether this pressure differential is either above or below a predetermined threshold limit for the activation/deactivation of the supplemental boost supply 140, 340 & 440 (fig. 1 & 3-4).
2. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 1, wherein the combustion chamber pressure controller is a turbine and/or a compressor 142 (fig. 1; col. 5, ln 66 thru col. 6, ln. 8).
3. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 1, wherein the combustion chamber pressure controller (e.g., see supplemental boost supply 340; fig. 3; col. 8, ln. 3-41) is a turbo arrangement comprising a turbine 342 arranged in downstream fluid communication with an exhaust port 316 to the combustion chamber (of cylinder 312) and a compressor 346 arranged in upstream fluid communication with an intake port 314 to the combustion chamber.
4. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 3, wherein the turbo arrangement 340 is an electrically controlled turbo arrangement (via controller 120; fig. 3; see col. 8, ln 3-26).
5. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 4, wherein the electrically controlled turbo arrangement 340 (fig. 3) comprises an electric turbo motor (e.g., supplemental assist motor 344) between the turbine 342 and the compressor 346.
6. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 5, wherein the electric turbo motor 344 is operatively coupled to the processing circuit (controller 120; see col. 8, ln. 3-26).
7. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 1, further comprising a supplementary motor (not shown; see col. 7, ln. 22-27) connected to the crankshaft 119, 130.
8. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 7, wherein the supplementary motor is an electric machine operatively coupled to the processing circuit 120 (col. 7, ln. 22-27).
9. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 8, wherein the electric machine is operable as an electric motor and as a generator (col. 7, ln. 22-27).
10. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 8, wherein the electric machine is electrically connected to the combustion chamber pressure controller 140 (fig. 1), the electric machine being configured to feed electric power to the combustion chamber pressure controller 140 (col. 7, ln. 22-27).
11. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 7, wherein the processing circuit (of controller 120) is further configured to: determine a desired output torque (again, implicitly taught) on the crankshaft 119, 130, and control the supplementary motor (of 140; not shown) and the combustion chamber pressure controller 140 contemporaneously in response to a difference between a current output torque and the desired output torque being above a predetermined torque threshold limit (implicit). As noted above, Klingbeil explicitly discloses the system utilizing the controller 120 to control the motor of combustion chamber pressure control 140 to drive a turbo at part load to provide more air, or to be used as a generator at full power to extract energy and limit peak pressure.
12. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 7, wherein the supplementary motor 442 (fig. 4) is directly attached to the crankshaft 119 (see col. 9, ln. 28-32).
13. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 1, further comprising a first pressure sensor and a second pressure sensor (again, this is implicitly taught by Klingbeil. As disclosed in col. 6, ln. 35-38, Klingbeil clearly teaches that the controller 120 receives feedback from one or more sensors configured to detect one or more parameters of the system 100. Thus, it is known to a person skilled in the art to recognize that such sensors would also include at least pressure sensors that are capable of sensing both the crankcase and combustion chamber pressures, as clearly disclosed by Klingbeil, in order to determine the pressure differential between the combustion chamber and crankcase in order to determine whether this differential is below/higher than a predetermined threshold limit for the control of the supplemental boost supply 140, 340 & 440 (as shown in fig. 1 & 3-4)).
14. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 13, wherein the first pressure sensor is configured to determine a first pressure value indicative of a pressure level in the combustion chamber (again, see discussion/disclosure above).
15. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 13, wherein the second pressure sensor is configured to determine a second pressure value indicative of a pressure level in the crankcase (again, see discussion/disclosure above).
16. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 13, wherein the first and second pressor sensors are operatively coupled to the processing circuit 120 (again, see discussion/disclosure above).
17. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (of controller 120) is configured to determine the pressure level in the combustion chamber 113 from a memory comprising a plurality of stored pressure levels for a plurality of stored engine operating conditions. This is implicitly taught as Klingbeil teaches the activation/deactivation of the supplemental boost supply 140, 340 & 440 by the controller 120 based on known pressures within both the combustion chamber and crankcase during at least idling periods and/or low-load operations of the engine.
18. The internal combustion engine arrangement of claim 17, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the pressure level in the crankcase 115 from the memory, the memory further comprising a plurality of stored pressure levels in the crankcase for the plurality of stored engine operating conditions. This is implicitly taught as Klingbeil teaches the activation/deactivation of the supplemental boost supply 140, 340 & 440 by the controller 120 based on known pressures within both the combustion chamber and crankcase during at least idling periods and/or low-load operations of the engine.
With regards to claim(s) 20, the claim(s) is/are commensurate in scope with claim(s) 1, and is/are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingbeil ‘796.
With respect to claim 19, Klingbeil discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but is silent as to wherein the ICE is a hydrogen internal combustion engine. However, it is well established in the art of internal combustion engines to provide internal combustion engines with a variety of non-hydrocarbon fuel alternatives, such as hydrogen and/or alcohols, since it offers a more economical advantage over other types of readily available hydrocarbon fuels. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ICE of Klingbeil to utilize hydrogen as a type of fuel for the ICE as hydrogen offers a more economical advantage over other hydrocarbon fuels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior arts all teach similar ICE control systems wherein the pressures of the combustion chamber and crankcase are monitored for the control of the PCV system in order to control the engine and its emissions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-pm (CT).
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 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.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights