DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 11/25/2025. Amended claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and new claims 21 are acknowledged and the following grounds of rejection below are maintained. Claims 2 cancelled.
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) 1-2, 9-10, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Demots (U.S. Publication 2018/0058277), hereinafter “Demots”.
Regarding claim 1, Demots discloses a piston cooling system for an internal combustion engine, comprising: a reservoir (sump 106) from which fluid is fed; at least one piston cooling nozzle (130) coupled to the reservoir, the PCN configured to direct the fluid fed from the reservoir for spraying the fluid onto a piston in the engine (paragraph 53); and a fluid flow control device connecting the reservoir and the PCN, the fluid flow control device including: a chamber (chamber mentioned in paragraph 52) fluidly connecting the reservoir to the PCN; and a valve (131) movably received in the chamber, wherein the valve is electronically controllable to move between a first position that allows fluid to flow through the chamber to the PCN and a second position that prevents fluid from flowing through the chamber to the PCN (paragraph 53); an electronic control unit (140) operably connected to the valve, the electronic control unit configured to control the valve in response to one or more operating parameters of the internal combustion engine (paragraphs 61-63), wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the valve (131) to move between the first position and the second position in a time-based intermittent PCN on and off mode of operation (paragraph 53). Examiner notes that Demots’ ECU has the capability to intermittingly fully open and fully close the valve (131).
Regarding claim 9, Demots discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the chamber of the fluid flow control device fluidly connects a main oil rifle (112 and 128a) of the internal combustion engine to a PCN rifle (130) of the internal combustion engine (paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 10, Demots discloses a method for controlling fluid flow to a piston cooling nozzle (PCN) of an internal combustion engine, the method comprising: determining one or more operating parameters (engine speed) of the internal combustion engine; determining an open position or a closed position for a valve (31) in a fluid flow control device in response to the one or more operating parameters (engine speed, paragraph 63), the fluid flow control device connecting a PCN rifle (130) of the internal combustion engine to a fluid source (106); and controlling the valve to either remain in, or move to, the open position or the closed position in response to a current position of the valve and the determined open position or closed position for the valve (paragraph 62); an electronic control unit (140) operably connected to the valve, the electronic control unit configured to control the valve in response to one or more operating parameters of the internal combustion engine (paragraphs 61-63), wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the valve (131) to move between the first position and the second position in a time-based intermittent PCN on and off mode of operation (paragraph 53). Examiner notes that Demots’ ECU has the capability to intermittingly fully open and fully close the valve (131).
Regarding claim 12, Demots discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising enabling or inhibiting PCN operation based on one or more of an engine state, oil temperature, oil pressure, coolant temperature, and intake manifold temperature (paragraphs 40 and 63).
Regarding claim 18, Demots discloses an apparatus for controlling fluid flow to a piston cooling nozzle (PCN) of an internal combustion engine, the apparatus including: an electronic controller configured to receive one or more operating parameters from the internal combustion engine and provide one or more commands to a fluid flow control device that controls fluid flow to the PCN, the electronic controller further configured to: determine an open position or a closed position for a valve in the fluid flow control device in response to the one or more operating parameters; and control the valve to either remain in or move to the open position or the closed position in response to a current position of the valve and the determined open position or closed position for the valve; and control the valve to move between the open position and the closed position in a time-based intermittent PCN on and of mode of operation. Refer to rejection of claim 10 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 3-8, 11, 13-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demots in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0283968), hereinafter “Anderson”.
Regarding claim 3, Demots discloses the same invention substantially as claimed such as turning the piston cooling jet on/off based on whether an engine speed is less than a threshold (paragraph 63), but is silent to disclose opening/closing piston cooling jet valve based upon a torque as well. However, Anderson teaches the use of actuating the piston cooling jet valve based upon an engine speed and engine torque relationship and curve (shown in figures 2-9, paragraphs 27 and 38) for the purpose of providing adequate amount of oil based upon the operating state of the engine to ensure no oversupply is provided that would cause negative effect on fuel economy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Demots by incorporating PCN valve actuation using an engine speed/torque curve relationship as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing adequate amount of oil based upon the operating state of the engine to ensure no oversupply is provided that would cause negative effect on fuel economy. Examiner notes that this claim is being examined under BRI due to the 112 issues mentioned above.
Regarding claim 4, Demots and Anderson disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the electronic control unit (Demots, 140) is configured to move the valve (Demots, 131) from the second position to the first position in response to at least one of the engine speed operating parameter being greater than the engine speed threshold (Demots, paragraph 63) and the engine torque operating parameter being greater than the engine torque threshold (Anderson, paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 5, Demots and Anderson disclose the system of claim 4, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to maintain the valve in the first position in a PCN on mode of operation in response to the engine speed and the engine torque lying above an engine speed-torque boundary (Anderson, paragraphs 38-40 and shown in figure 9).
Regarding claim 6, Demots and Anderson disclose the system of claim 5, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the valve to move between the first position and the second position in a time-based intermittent PCN on and off mode of operation in response to the engine speed and the engine torque lying below the speed-torque boundary (Anderson, speed-torque curve shown in figures 8-9), the engine speed operating parameter being greater than the low engine speed threshold, and the engine torque operating parameter being greater than the low engine torque threshold.
Regarding claim 7, Demots and Anderson disclose the system of claim 6, wherein in the time-based intermittent PCN on and off mode of operation the electronic control unit is configured to maintain the valve in the first position and the second position for predetermined amounts of time based on the engine speed operating parameter and the engine torque operating parameter (Anderson, figures 8-9).
Regarding claim 8, Demots and Anderson disclose the system of claim 5, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to maintain the valve in the first position for a predetermined period of time in response to the engine speed operating parameter and the engine torque operating parameter decreasing above the speed-torque boundary to the engine speed operating parameter being less than the low engine speed threshold and the engine torque operating parameter being less than the low engine torque threshold (Anderson, figures 8-9, paragraphs 38-40).
Regarding claim 11, Demots and Anderson disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the one or more operating parameters include an engine speed and an engine torque.
Regarding claim 13, Demots and Anderson disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising determining the closed position for the valve in response to an engine speed operating parameter being less than an engine speed threshold and an engine torque operating parameter being less than an engine torque threshold. Refer to rejection of claim 3 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 14, Demots and Anderson disclose the method of claim 13, further comprising determining the open position for the valve in response to at least one of the engine speed operating parameter being greater than the low engine speed threshold and the engine torque operating parameter being greater than the low engine torque threshold. Refer to rejection of claim 4 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 15, Demots and Anderson disclose the method of claim 14, further comprising maintaining the valve in the open position in response to the engine speed operating parameter and the engine torque operating parameter lying above a speed-torque boundary. Refer to rejection of claim 5 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 16, Demots and Anderson disclose the method of claim 15, further comprising intermittently opening and closing the valve in response to the engine speed operating parameter and engine torque operating parameter lying below the speed-torque boundary and being greater than at least one of the low engine speed threshold and the low engine torque threshold. Refer to rejection of claim 6 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 17, Demots and Anderson disclose the method of claim 16, wherein intermittently opening and closing the valve includes increasing an amount of time the valve is open versus the amount of time the valve is closed as the engine speed increases (Demots, paragraphs 64-65).
Regarding claim 19, Demots and Anderson disclose the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the one or more operating parameters include an engine speed operating parameter and an engine torque operating parameter. Refer to rejection of claim 11 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 20, Demots and Anderson disclose the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the open position or the closed position is determined in response to a zone on an engine speed-torque speed map (Anderson, shown in figures 8-9) that corresponds to the engine speed operating parameter and the engine torque operating parameter.
Regarding claim 21, Demots and Anderson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein an amount of time the PCN is on and off in the time-based intermittent PCN on and off mode varies for a calibratable amount of time that is based on depending on a speed and torque for the internal combustion engine. Refer to the rejection of claim 6 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states Demots does not disclose the ECU configured to control the valve to an open and closed position in a time-based intermittent PCN on and off mode of operation. This is a mere statement and the applicant does not provide why Demots does not teach this. However, examiner notes that Demots’ ECU still has the capability to perform the intermittent on and off.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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.
/SYED O HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 3/16/2026