DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 4/30/2026. Amended claims 1, 9-10, 16-17, and 20 are acknowledged and the following new grounds of rejection below are formulated.
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, 3-4, 6-10, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yarino et al. (U.S. Publication Number 2014/0014069), hereinafter “Yarino”.
Regarding claim 1, Yarino discloses a system for fuel injection, comprising: a primary fuel injection system configured to inject a fuel into a plurality of cylinders of a combustion engine using a first injection technique (direct cylinder injection through injector 11, paragraph 30), each cylinder coupled to a respective intake valve and exhaust valve (inherent); a supplemental fuel injection system configured to inject the fuel into the plurality of cylinders according a second injection technique (port injection through 12, paragraph 30), the second injection technique being different than the first injection technique (direct injection and port injection are different); and a controller (7) configured to monitor a parameter of a fuel pump (6) connected to the primary fuel injection system and the supplemental fuel injection system (paragraphs 31-32), wherein the fuel pump is a single pump configured to supply the fuel to the primary fuel injection system and the supplemental fuel injection system (shown in figure 1), the fuel pump is directly connected to the plurality of cylinders by a primary valve (511), and the fuel pump is directly connected to the plurality of cylinders by a secondary valve (512), and wherein the controller is configured to, based on the parameter (engine coolant temperature) being greater than or equal to a parameter threshold, control a ratio of a first volume of fuel injected by the supplemental fuel injection system to a second volume of fuel injected by the primary fuel injection system during an engine stroke (paragraph 51), the ratio controlled based on controlling at least one of the primary valve (511) and the secondary valve (512). Examiner notes that the primary valve (511) control the fuel ratio and the secondary valve control the fuel ratio as well based upon the engine coolant temperature exceeds a threshold (paragraph 45). The claim does not state that the valves are specifically for the same cylinder. Based upon reading the claim under BRI, the valves (511) and (512) can be considered as the first valve and the secondary valve.
Regarding claim 3, Yarino discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the primary fuel injection system is a direct injection system (11), and the supplemental fuel injection system is a port fuel injection system (12, paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 4, Yarino discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the parameter is a fuel intake volume (paragraphs 32) related to an amount of the fuel that the fuel pump takes in.
Regarding claim 6, Yarino discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the controller (7) is configured to operate the combustion engine according to a normal mode in which fuel injection is performed using a first value of the ratio (paragraph 30), and operate the combustion engine according to a supplemental mode (paragraph 30) in which fuel injection is performed using a second value of the ratio, the second value of the ratio selected to cause the parameter to fall below the parameter threshold (paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 7, Yarino discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the fuel injection is performed only by the primary fuel injection system in the normal mode (paragraph 30), and the fuel injection is performed only by the supplemental fuel injection system or by a combination of the primary fuel injection system and the supplemental fuel injection system in the supplemental mode (paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 8, Yarino discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the controller (7) is configured to determine the parameter during the supplemental mode, and compare the determined parameter to the parameter threshold (paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 9, Yarino discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the controller (7) is configured to adjust a flow of air to the cylinder based on the determined parameter being greater than or equal to the parameter threshold during the supplemental mode. Yarino’s controller has the capability to control the intake air volume according to the fuel supply.
Regarding claim 10, Yarino discloses A method of operating a combustion engine, comprising: providing a fuel-air mixture to the combustion engine by injecting a fuel into a plurality of cylinders of the combustion engine, the injecting performed by at least one of a primary fuel injection system configured to inject the fuel using a first injection technique, and a supplemental fuel injection system configured to inject the fuel using a second injection technique, the second injection technique being different than the first injection technique, wherein each cylinder is coupled to a respective intake valve and exhaust valve; monitoring a parameter of a fuel pump connected to the primary fuel injection system and the supplemental fuel injection system, wherein the fuel pump is a single pump configured to supply the fuel to the primary fuel injection system and the supplemental fuel injection system, the fuel pump is directly connected to the plurality of cylinders by a primary valve, and the fuel pump is directly connected to the plurality of cylinders by a secondary valve; and based on the parameter being greater than or equal to a parameter threshold, controlling a ratio of a first volume of the fuel injected by the supplemental fuel injection system to a second volume of the fuel injected by the primary fuel injection system during an engine stroke, the ratio controlled based on controlling at least one of the primary valve and the secondary valve. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 12, Yarino discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the primary fuel injection system is a direct injection system, and the supplemental fuel injection system is a port fuel injection system. Refer to the rejection of claim 3 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 13, Yarino discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the parameter is a fuel intake volume related to an amount of the fuel that the fuel pump takes in. Refer to the rejection of claim 4 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 14, Yarino discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the combustion engine is operated according to a normal mode in which fuel injection is performed using a first value of the ratio, and the combustion engine is operated according to a supplemental mode in which fuel injection is performed according to a second value of the ratio, the second value of the ratio selected to cause the parameter to fall below the parameter threshold. Refer to the rejection of claim 6 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 15, Yarino discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the fuel injection is performed only by the primary fuel injection system in the normal mode, and the fuel injection is performed only by the supplemental fuel injection system or by a combination of the primary fuel injection system and the supplemental fuel injection system in the supplemental mode. Refer to the rejection of claim 7 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 16, Yarino discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising determining the parameter during the supplemental mode, comparing the determined parameter to the parameter threshold, and adjusting a flow of air to the cylinder based on the determined parameter being greater than or equal to the parameter threshold. Refer to the rejection of claims 8-9 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 17, Yarino discloses a vehicle system comprising: a combustion engine; a fuel system including a primary fuel injection system configured to inject a fuel into a plurality of cylinders of the combustion engine using a first injection technique, and a supplemental fuel injection system configured to inject the fuel into the cylinder using a second injection technique, the second injection technique being different than the first injection technique; and a controller configured to monitor a parameter of a fuel pump connected to the primary fuel injection system and the supplemental fuel injection system, wherein the fuel pump is a single pump configured to supply the fuel to the primary fuel injection system and the supplemental fuel injection system, the fuel pump is directly connected to the plurality of cylinders by a primary valve, and the fuel pump is directly connected to the plurality of cylinders by a secondary valve, and wherein the controller is configured to, based on the parameter being greater than or equal to a parameter threshold, control a ratio of a first volume of the fuel injected by the supplemental fuel injection system to a second volume of the fuel injected by the primary fuel injection system during an engine stroke, the ratio controlled based on controlling at least one of the primary valve and the secondary valve. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 18, Yarino discloses the vehicle system of claim 17, wherein the controller is configured to operate the combustion engine according to a normal mode in which fuel injection is performed using a first value of the ratio, and operate the combustion engine according to a supplemental mode in which fuel injection is performed using a second value of the ratio, the second value of the ratio selected to cause the parameter to fall below the parameter threshold. Refer to the rejection of claim 6 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 19, Yarino discloses the vehicle system of claim 18, wherein the fuel injection is performed only by the primary fuel injection system in the normal mode, and the fuel injection is performed only by the supplemental fuel injection system or by a combination of the primary fuel injection system and the supplemental fuel injection system in the supplemental mode. Refer to the rejection of claim 7 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 20, Yarino discloses the vehicle system of claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to determine the parameter during the supplemental mode, compare the determined parameter to the parameter threshold, and adjust a flow of air to a cylinder based on the determined parameter being greater than or equal to the parameter threshold. Refer to the rejection of claims 8-9 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarino.
Regarding claim 5, Yarino discloses the same invention substantially as claimed but is silent to disclose the parameter being an average volume of fuel intake to the fuel pump over a plurality of engine strokes. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have the parameter of the fuel pump be an average volume of fuel intake of the fuel pump over a plurality of engine strokes for the purpose of providing a more accurate fuel intake reading if the number of fuel pump cam lobes do not match the number of cylinders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to modify Yarino by incorporating an average volume of the fuel intake for the fuel pump for the purpose of providing a more accurate fuel intake reading if the number of fuel pump cam lobes do not match the number of cylinders. An example of such a configuration is mentioned in Pursifull et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0291886) in paragraphs 82-83.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarino in view of Hollar et al. (U.S. Patent Number 9,885,309), hereinafter “Hollar”.
Regarding claim 2, Yarino discloses the same invention substantially as claimed but is silent to disclose wherein the primary fuel injection system includes a direct injector having a first size, and the supplemental fuel injection system includes a direct injector having a second size, the second size being different than the first size. However, Hollar teaches the use of different sized fuel injectors (166 and 170) for direct injection versus port injection (column 6, lines 21-29) for the purpose of accounting for the different types of fuel characteristics depending on distribution ratio. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yarino by incorporating different sized injectors as taught by Hollar for the purpose of accounting for the different types of fuel characteristics depending on distribution ratio.
Regarding claim 11, Yarino and Hollar disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the primary fuel injection system includes a direct injector having a first size, and the supplemental fuel injection system includes a direct injector having a second size, the second size different than the first size. Refer to the rejection of claim 2 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the new Yarino art.
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 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights