DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a reply to the amendment dated May 18, 2026.
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended, and claims 5 and 6 has been added as new claims.
Claims 1-6 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has amended the claim to include: “whereas the processing circuitry is configured not to determine whether the intake system anomaly has occurred when only one of the cylinders has experienced the pre-ignition and/or knocking where the combustion occurs at the point in time differing from the ignition timing.” The particular limitation has not been disclosed in the specification, and it is considered a new matter. While the specifications provide the support for detecting a pre-ignition in two or more cylinders, there is no support for a method wherein the processing circuity is configured not to determine whether the intake system anomaly has occurred when only one of the cylinders has experienced the pre-ignition and/or knocking. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure fails to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2173.05(i)
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) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (JP 2009-91977 A), in view of Abe et al. (JP 2009203883 A), hereafter Abe.
Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto discloses a hydrogen engine controller (24) configured to control a hydrogen [0038] engine the hydrogen engine controller, comprising: processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to repeatedly set a target fuel injection amount based on a target engine torque [0038], the processing circuitry is configured to repeatedly determine whether a misfiring is occurring in two or more of the cylinders [0022], when determining that the misfiring, the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether an intake system anomaly has occurred, the intake system anomaly being an anomaly in which an amount of air supplied to the cylinders is decreased, and when determining that the intake system anomaly has occurred, the processing circuitry is configured to limit the target fuel injection amount ([0022], [0038]).
Sugimoto is silent to anomaly being knocking/pre-ignition in a forced induced air engine.
Abe discloses an internal combustion engine using gas as main fuel, and if the air supply amount fluctuates due to failure of the air supply supercharger, misfiring, extinguishing, knocking, etc. may occur due to insufficient ignition fuel or fluctuations in the gas fuel mixture concentration, [0002], and a method wherein “a failure has occurred at a common part of a plurality of cylinders. Knocking occurs when the amount of air is reduced compared to the amount of gas of the main fuel and the gas fuel is in an excessive state.” Paragraph [0047].
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 the turbocharger and the method of Abe in the hydrogen engine of Sugimoto in order to anomality in the engine.
Regarding claim 5, Abe discloses an engine controller according to claim 1, wherein, in response to determining that two or more of the cylinders have experienced the pre-ignition and/or knocking where the combustion occurs at the point in time differing from the ignition timing, the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the intake system anomaly has occurred when a boost pressure is smaller than a value obtained by subtracting a margin from a target boost pressure [0047].
Regarding claim 6, Abe discloses an engine controller according to claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the intake system anomaly has occurred when a logical product condition including two or more of the following conditions is satisfied: (A) the boost pressure is smaller than a value obtained by subtracting the margin from the target boost pressure; (B) an actual engine load factor is smaller than a value obtained by subtracting a margin from a target engine load factor, the actual engine load factor being a ratio of a current intake air amount to a maximum intake air amount corresponding to a rotational speed of the hydrogen engine; and (C) an actual torque is smaller than a value obtained by subtracting a margin from a target torque [0003].
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (JP 2009-91977 A), in view of Abe et al. (JP 2009203883 A), and in further view of Melnyk (US 2015/0308366 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sugimoto in view of Abe does not disclose a method when determining that the pre-ignition and/or knocking has occurred in two or more of the cylinders, the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether the target fuel injection amount is greater than a limit injection amount, when determining that the target fuel injection amount is greater than the limit injection amount, the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the intake system anomaly has occurred, and the limit injection amount decreases as an intake air amount detected by an airflow meter decreases.
Melnyk discloses a method wherein when the target air-fuel ratio is not equal to the actual air-fuel ratio to within a predetermined range of tolerance the fuel quantity is adjusted by at least one of a different percentage and a different amount [0041]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Melnyk and adjust the amount of hydrogen in the engine of Sugimoto as modified with Abe in order to prevent misfire.
Regarding claim 3, Sugimoto as modified with Abe and Melnyk discloses the hydrogen engine controller according to claim 2, wherein the limit injection amount decreases as a rotational speed of the hydrogen engine increases (it’s known in the art that hydrogen engine burns less fuel at higher speeds).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (JP 2009-91977 A), in view of Abe et al. (JP 2009203883 A), and in further view of Kobayashi (US 2005/0155344 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sugimoto as modified with Abe is silent to a hydrogen engine controller according to claim 1, wherein when determining that the intake system anomaly has occurred, the processing circuitry is configured to limit the target engine torque to be less than or equal to a torque limit value, thereby limiting the target fuel injection amount, and the torque limit value decreases as a rotational speed of the hydrogen engine increases. Kobayashi discloses a hydrogen engine (10) wherein a target output torque is control to prevent the occurrence of knocking ([0099-0101]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the engine of Sugimoto as taught by Kobayashi, in order to prevent occurrence of knocking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on grounds of rejection disclosed in the current rejection.
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
Prosecution Insights