Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/906,237

FUELING SYSTEM CONTROLS INCLUDING ADAPTATION TO FUEL CHARACTERISTICS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Oct 04, 2024
Examiner
HOLBROOK, TEUTA BAJRAMOVIC
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
CUMMINS INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
454 granted / 629 resolved
+2.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
652
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 629 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is a reply to the amendment dated December 18, 2025. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. 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) 1-7 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. (CN 113153600 A), hereafter Dong. Regarding claims 1 and 11, Dong discloses a process of operating a fuel injection system, the process comprising: operating a fuel injector to perform an injection of fuel including opening an injector needle to begin the injection and closing the injector needle to end the injection (pg. 10 translation states: “The water hammer pressure oscillation produced by the closing of the needle valve at the end of the main spray can be used to simulate the water hammer pressure oscillation produced by the pre-spray. Therefore, the following formula can be used to preprocess the pressure signal to calculate the main injection rule”); sensing a fluid hammer pressure of fuel in the injector generated in response to the closing the injector needle (step 1, [0015]); determining at least one physical characteristic of the fuel in response to the fluid hammer pressure (i.e. density in Fig. 3); modifying calculations (formula 15 and formula 16) in response to the at least one physical characteristic; utilizing calculations to provide a fueling command; and controlling operation of the fuel injection system in response to the at least one physical characteristic (step 1 through step 5, page 2 translation states: “in the process of multiple injections, the precise control of the fuel injection process is a bottleneck problem that needs to be solved urgently. The prerequisite for achieving precise control of the fuel injection process is to achieve accurate perception and real-time feedback of the fuel injection pattern.”; Fig. 3). Regarding claims 2 and 12, Dong discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises evaluating a waveform of the fluid hammer pressure and determining the at least one physical characteristic in response to the evaluating(i.e. page 5 recites: “Further, the step 4 decoupling the fuel pressure wave is specifically that because the pressure wave in the fuel system propagates in the form of dP, the pressure wave superimposition and decoupling theory of equation (12) is used to obtain the pressure fluctuation dPM caused by the main injection”). Regarding claims 3 and 13, Dong discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises evaluating at least one of a frequency and a wavelength of the fluid hammer pressure and determining the at least one physical characteristic in response to the evaluating (pg. 8 recites: “Since the pressure wave in the high-pressure fuel pipe during diesel fuel injection is a typical microwave, it can be considered that the water hammer pressure wave propagates in the fuel pipe at the speed of sound. Therefore, the fuel sound velocity can be calculated by the following equation by measuring the time difference Δt between the incident wave of the water hammer pressure wave and the reflected wave passing the measurement point, and the real-time direct measurement of the fuel sound velocity a can be achieved.”) Regarding claims 4 and 14, Dong discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises evaluating an amplitude of the fluid hammer pressure and determining the at least one physical characteristic in response to the evaluating (Formula 8; Fig. 3). Regarding claims 5 and 15, Dong discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises evaluating a time domain waveform of the fluid hammer pressure and determining the at least one physical characteristic in response to the evaluating (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; Formula 1 and Formula 2). Regarding claims 6, 7, 16 and 17, Dong discloses process of claim 1, wherein the at least one physical characteristic comprises at least one of a fuel viscosity and a fuel density ([0107]; Formula 7). Regarding claims 10 and 20, Dong discloses controlling operation of the fuel injection system in response to the at least one physical characteristic comprises modifying at least one of an injection pressure, and injection quantity, and an injection timing in response to the at least one physical characteristic [0004-0006]. 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. Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (CN 113153600 A), in view of Mikami (JP 2018184936 A). Regarding claims 8, 9, 18 and 19, Dong discloses a pressure sensor (2) at an inlet of a fuel injector. Dong does not disclose a system wherein the fuel pressure reading is taken from a pressure sensor located inside the fuel injector; and, wherein the location inside the fuel injector comprises a chamber located upstream from the injector needle. Mikami discloses “the fuel pressure sensor 20a may be provided inside the injector 20, or may be provided in the high-pressure pipe 14 on the injector 20 side than the orifice 12a. This is because the fuel pressure fluctuation accompanying the injection operation of the injector 20 can be detected with high accuracy at any position”, [0027]. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pressure sensor of Dong inside of a fuel injector as taught by Mikami, in order to observe a fluid hammer pressure. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that prior art Dong fails to disclose or suggest “modifying one or more lookup tables, calculations, or other fueling control logic in response to the at least one physical characteristics, utilizing the modified one or more lookup tables, calculations, or other fueling control logic to provide a fueling command; and controlling operation of the fuel injection system in response to the fueling command”. Page 8 Examiner asserts that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specifications. In this instance, the applicant merely claims a process of operating a fuel injection system, and modifying calculations to provide a fueling control (claims 1 and 11). As claimed, lookup tables have been claimed as an alternative to calculations and/or fueling control logic. However, even if the inventor were to claim each method individually, updating lookup tables and/or logic is known to be the part of the closed loop feedback control as disclosed by Dong. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 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 TEUTA B HOLBROOK whose telephone number is (571)270-3276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, 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. /TEUTA HOLBROOK/ Examiner Art Unit 3747 /GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584435
Method of Operating a Cooling System, Computer Program, Computer-Readable Medium, Control Arrangement, Cooling System, and Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577901
WATER JACKET SPACER STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580507
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENSET COOLANT CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565867
Cycle based on compressed air by an auxiliary compressor for internal combustion engines
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560138
DEVICE FOR ENHANCING COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY OF COMBUSTION UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+26.2%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 629 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month