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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “having injection timing as a first axis and ignition timing as a second axis.” However, the claim does not offer details as to their orientation or which axis they are. For the purposes of examination, the Fig. 14 will be considered for the claim, wherein the Ignition timing is the Y-axis, with retarding being upwards on it, and ignition timing being the X-axis with retarding being the rightward direction.
Further, claim 1 recites “advance” and “retard” limits but fails to disclose limits of what. For example: an advance limit of ignition timing or of injection timing for reducing preignition? Both? Claim 7 clarifies the fourth limit line to be a retard limit of ignition timing, but the others are not defined.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, the claim notes a “first shifting” and a “Second shifting” of a control point, wherein the control point is shifted “in stages” to be brought to the maximum advance within a range of the parameter region, but does not specify what these stages are or what increments this would occur. How are the stages determined? The claim is silent as to what these stages are and the disclosure does not explicitly define them. Claim 4 suffers from a similar issue of not defining stages.
Further, claim 3 then recites that the second shift includes “shifting the control point onto any one of the limit lines” wherein the “maximum advance” will not exist on all lines, so the claim includes shifting the control point to possible lines which are not within in the scope of claim 2 and thus is indefinite for having differing scopes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art fails to disclose or make obvious claim 1, as best understood in light of the 112 2nd rejections above, wherein an engine ignition and injection timing system is modified such that a control point on a map of the axis of ignition and injection timing is modified to maximum ignition timing advance within a control area of the defined limit line cross-sections
The closest prior art includes:
Wakimoto et al (US 2020/0095949) which discloses a control unit deifning a map that defined the relationship between injection timing and ignition timing such that a target ignitiong timing can be selected (¶ [0036] to [0041]).
Masuda et al (US 2020/0032736) discloses a control system for an engine (Abstract), wherein the ignition timing is determined by reaching the limits on a preset map (¶ [0022] and [0023]).
Fukusako et al (US 2004/0163623) discloses a control system which modifies the ignition timing based on calculated values from the knock limit (¶ [0073]) and bases this on a map which includes various values including rotation speed and intake pressure (¶ [0075]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A LATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6p.
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 5712721196. 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.
/KEVIN A LATHERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747