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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 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 limitation “energy storage device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification describes an “energy storage device” using similar language to that recited in the claims. However, the Specification does not define a structure associated with the “device” for performing the function of storing energy. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For examining purposes, the “energy storage device” has been interpreted to be a battery based on the discussion of the “state-of-charge” of the energy storage device in the Specification.
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) 1, 2, 4-12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023016792 A1 to Stiller (Stiller) (English-equivalent US 20250129738 A1 is used for below analysis) in view of US 20230265786 A1 to Redon et al. (Redon).
In reference to independent claim 1, Stiller discloses:
An engine system (10) comprising:
an engine (12) having 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]); 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); and
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 (electric engine 36) coupled to the shaft (34).
Stiller, however, 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.
In reference to dependent claim 2, Stiller further discloses: an air throttle (62) in fluid communication with an outlet of the compressor and an inlet of the intake manifold, the air throttle configured to finely adjust the airflow introduced to the intake manifold (see [0027] and Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 4, Stiller further discloses: an EGR passageway (66) in fluid communication with an outlet of the turbine and inlet of the compressor (see [0028] and Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claims 5 and 12, Stiller further discloses: 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/intake manifold (see [0029]).
In reference to dependent claim 6, Stiller further discloses: an EGR cooler (68) configured to decrease the temperature of exhaust gases (see [0029]).
In reference to dependent claim 7, Stiller further discloses: an inlet of the EGR cooler is in fluid communication with an exhaust passage between the exhaust manifold and an inlet of the turbine (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 8, Stiller further discloses: an outlet of the EGR cooler (68) is in fluid communication with the intake manifold (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 9, Stiller further discloses: an outlet of the EGR cooler (68) is in fluid communication with an inlet of the compressor (30) (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 10, Stiller further discloses: an outlet of the EGR cooler (68) 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 Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 11, Stiller further discloses: an inlet of the EGR cooler (68) is in fluid communication with an outlet of the turbine (26) and the outlet of the EGR cooler (68) is in fluid communication with an inlet of the compressor (30) (see Fig. 1).
In reference to independent claim 17, the scope of claim 17 is similar to that of claim 2. Please refer to rejection of claim 2 above.
In reference to dependent claim 18, Stiller further discloses: an EGR passageway (64) in fluid communication with an outlet of the turbine (26) 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 (see [0029]).
In reference to dependent claim 19, Stiller further discloses: 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 (see [0029]).
In reference to independent claim 20, Stiller further discloses one or more piston-cylinder (12, 20, 22) arrangements in fluid communication with an intake manifold and an exhaust manifold (see Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230265786 A1 to Redon et al. (Redon) in view of US 20220170426 A1 to Prochazka et al. (Prochazka).
In reference to independent claim 1, Redon discloses:
An engine system comprising:
an engine (10) having an intake manifold (40) and an exhaust manifold (42); 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 (65, 66); and
an electric turbocharger (48) having:
a turbine (45) in communication with the exhaust manifold (42);
a compressor (44) in fluid communication with the intake manifold (40) and configured to be driven by the turbine by a shaft (47) coupled therebetween (see [0027]); and
an electrical machine (49) coupled to the shaft (47) (see [0027]); and
a controller (70), including a processor and memory architecture, operably connected with the electrified air system (see [0030] and Fig. 1), 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 [0028]).
Redon is silent regarding a charge air cooler in fluid communication with the intake manifold and configured to reduce a temperature of airflow introduced to the intake manifold.
A charge air cooler is well-known as evidenced by Prochazka, which teaches a similar engine system (100) having a turbocharger (120) with a charge air cooler (144) for cooling compressed air from the compressor (122) of the turbocharger (120) (see [0030]).
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 Redon to add a charge air cooler for cooling compressed intake air as taught by Prochazka in order to maximize efficiency of the engine.
In reference to dependent claim 3, Prochazka further teaches a pressure relief valve (140) in fluid communication with an outlet of the compressor (122) (see [0030]) and an inlet of the intake manifold (see Fig. 1), the pressure relief valve (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).
In reference to dependent claim 14, Redon further discloses the engine (10) is a spark-ignited engine (see [0029]).
In reference to dependent claim 15, Redon further discloses the spark-ignited engine uses a low C02 fuel (i.e. hydrogen, see Abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023016792 A1 to Stiller (Stiller) (English-equivalent US 20250129738 A1 is used for below analysis) in view of US 20230265786 A1 to Redon et al. (Redon) further in view of CN 110094260 B to Liu et al. (Liu).
In reference to dependent claim 13, Stiller and Redon are 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 Stiller and Redon 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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230265786 A1 to Redon et al. (Redon) in view of US 20220170426 A1 to Prochazka et al. (Prochazka) further in view of CN 116517734 A to Unfug (Unfug).
In reference to dependent claim 16, Redon further discloses that the fuel is hydrogen (), which is a “low CO2 fuel” being that hydrogen does not produce CO2 upon combustion. However, Redon and Prochazka are silent regarding the fuel is 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 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 Redon as they are renewable energy sources that help with reducing exhaust gas emissions.
Conclusion
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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