DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system” in claims 1, 17 and 20 and “energy storage device” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “an air throttle” in line 1 whereas claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, explicitly excludes an air throttle in the last line of the claim. There is no support in Applicant’s disclosure for this limitation in claim 2. The Specification discloses the engine system being provided with air throttle or without an air throttle (see [0029]). However, it is clearly not supported to have and not have an air throttle.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The recitation of “an air throttle” in line 1 of the claim contradicts the recitation “without an air throttle” in the last line of claim 1. It is unclear how the engine system as claimed would both exclude and include an air throttle, thus rendering claim 2 indefinite.
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 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7155334 B1 to Stewart et al. (Stewart).
In reference to independent claim 1, Stewart discloses:
An engine system (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an engine (20) having an intake manifold and an exhaust manifold (manifolds not shown);
a charge air cooler (54) in fluid communication with the intake manifold and configured to reduce a temperature of airflow introduced to the intake manifold; and
an electrified air system configured to selectively increase a flow of intake air and exhaust gas to the engine, the electrified air system comprising:
an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system (see Fig. 1); and
an electric turbocharger having:
a turbine (36) in communication with the exhaust manifold;
a compressor (38) in fluid communication with the intake manifold and configured to be driven by the turbine by a shaft coupled therebetween; and
an electrical machine (see col. 4 at lines 8-12) coupled to the shaft; and
a controller (88), including a processor and memory architecture, operably connected with the electrified air system, the controller configured to operate the electrical machine to control a rotational speed of the shaft,
wherein the controller selectively controls the electrical machine to increase the rotational speed of the shaft to increase the speed of the compressor or decrease the rotational speed of the shaft to decrease the speed of the compressor to control an air to fuel mixture entering the intake manifold (see col. 4 at lines 8-12) without an air throttle (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 14, Stewart further discloses: the engine is a spark-ignited engine (see col. 1 at lines 64-65).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20040231650 A1 to Gray, Jr. (Gray).
In reference to independent claim 1, Gray discloses:
An engine system (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an engine (1) having an intake manifold (11) and an exhaust manifold (17);
a charge air cooler (21) in fluid communication with the intake manifold (11) (see Fig. 1) and configured to reduce a temperature of airflow introduced to the intake manifold (see [0021]); and
an electrified air system configured to selectively increase a flow of intake air and exhaust gas to the engine, the electrified air system comprising:
an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system (4, 6, 7, 8); and
an electric turbocharger having (9, 10, 13):
a turbine (10) in communication with the exhaust manifold (17);
a compressor (9) in fluid communication with the intake manifold (11) and configured to be driven by the turbine (10) by a shaft coupled therebetween (see Fig. 1);
and an electrical machine (13) coupled to the shaft (see Fig. 1); and a controller (12), including a processor (controller 12 is a CPU) and memory architecture, operably connected with the electrified air system, the controller configured to operate the electrical machine (13) to control a rotational speed of the shaft (see [0021]),
wherein the controller selectively controls the electrical machine to increase the rotational speed of the shaft to increase the speed of the compressor or decrease the rotational speed of the shaft to decrease the speed of the compressor to control an air to fuel mixture entering the intake manifold (see [0021]) without an air throttle (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 4, Gray further discloses: the EGR system comprises an EGR passageway (between ports 4 and 6) in fluid communication with an outlet (via port 6) of the turbine (10) and inlet (via port 4) of the compressor (9).
In reference to dependent claims 5 and 12, Gray further discloses: the EGR system further comprises an EGR valve (8), wherein the controller is configured to selectively operate the EGR valve to increase or decrease an amount of exhaust gases being introduced to the inlet of the compressor and, accordingly, the intake manifold (see [0020]).
In reference to dependent claim 6, Gray further discloses: the EGR system comprises an EGR cooler (7) configured to decrease the temperature of exhaust gases (such is the known and intended function of an EGR cooler).
In reference to dependent claim 11, Gray further discloses: an inlet of the EGR cooler (at port 6) is in fluid communication with an outlet of the turbine (10) and the outlet of the EGR cooler (at port 4) is in fluid communication with an inlet of the compressor (9) (see Fig. 1).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Prochazka.
In reference to dependent claim 3, Gray is silent regarding a pressure relief valve in fluid communication with an outlet of the compressor and an inlet of the intake manifold, the pressure relief valve configured to relieve an increase in pressure resulting from an abrupt change in the engine speed or air flow metered into the intake manifold.
Prochazka teaches a similar engine system (100) having a turbocharger (120) coupled with an electric motor (126) and a recirculation valve (RCV 140) in fluid communication with an outlet of the compressor (122) (see [0030]) and an inlet of the intake manifold (see Fig. 1), the RCV (140) configured to relieve an increase in pressure resulting from an abrupt change in the engine speed or air flow metered into the intake manifold (RCV 146 is opened to prevent surge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engine system of Gray to include the RCV of Prochazka to prevent compressor surge.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Stiller.
In reference to dependent claims 7-10, Gray’s EGR system is a low-pressure EGR (LP-EGR).
Stiller teaches a similar engine system (see Fig. 1) including a high-pressure EGR (HP-EGR) system (50) including an EGR cooler (54) in an EGR passage (20) in which the inlet of the EGR cooler fluidly communicates with the an exhaust passage between an exhaust manifold (22) and the inlet of the turbine (26) (see Fig. 1) and the outlet of the EGR cooler fluidly communicates with a passage between the outlet of the compressor (30) and the inlet of a charge air cooler (39) (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EGR system of Gray to be an HP-EGR system as taught by Stiller in order to mitigate exhaust emissions as needed while using a shorter path between the exhaust and intake passages than that of an LP-EGR, thus providing a faster response to changes in engine speed and loads.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Liu.
In reference to dependent claim 13, Gray is silent regarding the electrical machine is configured to receive rotational power from the shaft and generate energy, wherein an electrical system having an electrical bus is configured to control the electrical bus to store the generated energy in an energy storage device, provide power to a flywheel of the engine, or provide power to an electric machine of an EGR pump.
Liu teaches a similar turbocharged engine system including a turbine (210), a compressor (220), and a motor generator (410) that operates in generator and motor modes. When in generator mode, the motor generator (410) charges a battery (see page 5 of the machine generated translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engine system of Gray to substitute the electric machine (36) of Stiller with the motor generator (410) as taught by Liu which would allow for it to assist the compressor at low speeds in motor mode while utilizing energy from the exhaust in order to generate electricity to be stored in the battery, thus improving efficiency.
Moreover, it would have been obvious that a controller, such as an ECU, having an electrical system with an electrical bus to control the operation of the assist device as an ECU of an engine is well-known to have an electrical system with an electrical bus.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Unfug.
In reference to dependent claims 15-16, Stewart is silent regarding the spark-ignited engine uses a low CO2 fuel, including one of biogas, renewable methane, hydrogen alcohols, liquid biofuels, ammonia, or synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Unfug teaches a similar turbocharged engine (10) having a turbocharger (13, 14, 15) with an EGR system (16, 17, 24). The engine (10) of Unfug operates on low CO2 fuels including methanol or ethanol (i.e. hydrogen alcohols) (see page 2 of the machine generated translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected methanol or ethanol as the fuel for the engine system of Stewart as they are renewable energy sources that help with reducing exhaust gas emissions.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prochazka in view of Redon.
In reference to independent claim 17, Prochazka discloses:
An engine system (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an engine (10) having an intake manifold (see Fig. 1) and an exhaust manifold (22);
a charge air cooler (39) in fluid communication with the intake manifold (see Fig. 1) and configured to reduce a temperature of airflow introduced to the intake manifold; and
an electrified air system configured to selectively increase a flow of intake air and exhaust gas to the engine, the electrified air system comprising:
an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system (64, 66, 68, 70);
an electric turbocharger (24) having:
a turbine (26) in communication with the exhaust manifold (22);
a compressor (30) in fluid communication with the intake manifold (see Fig. 1) and configured to be driven by the turbine by a shaft (34) coupled therebetween; and
an electrical machine (36) coupled to the shaft,
an air throttle (62) in fluid communication with an outlet of the compressor and an inlet of the intake manifold (see Fig. 1), the air throttle configured to finely adjust the airflow introduced to the intake manifold (“A throttle valve 62 is arranged in the intake tract 18, in particular downstream of the intercooler 39 and upstream of the combustion chambers 16, in particular upstream of the inlet point E1 which a quantity of the air flowing through the intake tract 18 to be supplied to the combustion chambers 16 can be adjusted.”); and
the electrical machine increases the rotational speed of the shaft to increase the speed of the compressor or decreases the rotational speed of the shaft to decrease the speed of the compressor (“the exhaust gas turbocharger 24 has an electric machine 36, by means of which at least the compressor wheel 32 can be driven electrically”) to control an air to fuel mixture entering the intake manifold and the controller is configured to control the electrical machine to prevent a pressure spike without a pressure relief valve (“By closing the throttle valve 62, also referred to as the intake air throttle valve, a pressure, also referred to as the intake manifold pressure and prevailing in the intake tract 18, in particular downstream of the charge air cooler 39, 38, such as the pressure p2s, for example, can be reduced.”).
Prochazka is silent regarding a controller, including a processor and memory architecture, operably connected with the electrified air system, the controller configured to operate the electrical machine to control a rotational speed of the shaft.
In engine systems including turbocharged internal combustion engines such as that disclosed in Prochazka, it is well-known to have controllers like electronic control units (ECUs) to control operation of engine system elements.
This is evidenced by the similar engine system of Redon including an engine (10), and EGR system (65, 66), an electric turbocharger (48) having a turbine (45), a compressor (44), and assist device (49), and an ECU (70) (see [0030] and Fig. 1) that controls the operations of the assist device (49), the assist device (49) varies the speed of the compressor (44) thus varies the amount of charge air provided to the intake (see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the engine system of Prochazka would have included an ECU for controlling the electric engine (36) as is well-known in the art.
In reference to dependent claim 18, Prochazka further discloses: the EGR system comprises an EGR passageway (66) in fluid communication with an outlet of the turbine (26) (see Fig. 1) and inlet of the compressor (30) (see Fig. 1), the EGR passageway having an EGR valve (70) , wherein the controller is configured to selectively operate the EGR valve to increase or decrease an amount of exhaust gases being introduced to the inlet of the compressor (“the exhaust gas recirculation valve 70 can be used to set a quantity of the exhaust gas flowing through the recirculation line 66, i.e. a quantity of the exhaust gas which is branched off from the exhaust tract 20 by means of the recirculation line 66 at the branching point A2 and is introduced into the recirculation line 66”).
In reference to dependent claim 19, Prochazka further discloses: the EGR passageway (66) comprises an EGR cooler (68) between the outlet of the turbine (26) and the EGR valve (70) (see Fig. 1), the EGR cooler being configured to decrease the temperature of exhaust gases (“he exhaust gas flowing through to the recirculation line 66 can be cooled by means of the exhaust gas recirculation cooler 68”).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiller in view of Redon.
In reference to independent claim 20, Stiller discloses:
An engine system (10) comprising:
an engine (12) having one or more piston-cylinder arrangements (14) in fluid communication with an intake manifold (not numbered) and an exhaust manifold (22);
a charge air cooler(39) in fluid communication with the intake manifold and configured to reduce a temperature of airflow introduced to the intake manifold (see [0022]);
an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system (50), the EGR system having an EGR cooler (54) configured to decrease the temperature of exhaust gases (see [0026]);
an electric turbocharger (24) having:
a turbine (26) in communication with the exhaust manifold (see [0022]);
a compressor (30) in fluid communication with the intake manifold and configured to be driven by the turbine by a shaft (34) coupled therebetween (see [0022]); and
an electrical machine (36)coupled to the shaft (34);
wherein an inlet of the EGR cooler (54) is in fluid communication with an exhaust passage between the exhaust manifold (22) and an inlet of the turbine (26) and an outlet of the EGR cooler (54) is in fluid communication with a passage between the outlet of the compressor (30) and the inlet of a charge air cooler (39) that is in fluid communication with the intake manifold (see [0026] and Fig. 1).
Stiller is silent regarding a controller, including a processor and memory architecture, operably connected with the electrified air system, the controller configured to operate the electrical machine to control a rotational speed of the shaft, wherein the controller selectively controls the electrical machine to increase the rotational speed of the shaft to increase the speed of the compressor or decrease the rotational speed of the shaft to decrease the speed of the compressor to control an air to fuel mixture entering the intake manifold.
In engine systems including turbocharged internal combustion engines such as that disclosed in Stiller, it is well-known to have controllers like electronic control units (ECUs) to control operation of engine system elements.
This is evidenced by the similar engine system of Redon including an engine (10), and EGR system (65, 66), an electric turbocharger (48) having a turbine (45), a compressor (44), and assist device (49), and an ECU (70) (see [0030] and Fig. 1) that controls the operations of the assist device (49), the assist device (49) varies the speed of the compressor (44) thus varies the amount of charge air provided to the intake (see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the engine system of Stiller would have included an ECU for controlling the electric engine (36) as is well-known in the art.
Stiller and Redon are silent regarding an electrical power system configured to provide electrical power in the engine system, the electrical power system comprising an electrical bus.
It would have been obvious that the controller (ECU 70) of Redon would have included an electrical system with an electrical bus to control the operation of the assist device (49) as an ECU of an engine is well-known to have an electrical system with an electrical bus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights