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 .
Examiner Notes
The previous rejection mailed 04/02/2026 is withdrawn and a new rejection is provided below. This rejection is made non-final as it includes a newly presented piece of art.
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 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingbeil et al (US 2023/0184181) in view of Kojima et al (US 2011/0265464) and further in view of Meguro (JP 2002058950A).
Regarding claim 1, Klingbeil discloses an engine system including an engine that operates by a fuel containing a toxic substance (¶ [0024], an engine system which uses various fuels included ammonia and methanol), the engine system comprising:
a case 102 that surrounds the engine 10 (Fig. 2, shown compartment 102 around the engine).
Klingbeil fails to disclose a fuel detection system making use of sensors according to the characteristics of the fuel being used.
Kojima discloses a fuel detector 50 that is disposed inside or outside the case and detects the fuel that has leaked to outside of the engine (¶ [0031] and Fig. 2, the sensor 50 being within case 54),
wherein the fuel is detected by using the fuel detector is disposed at an upper portion of the case when the vapor specific gravity of the fuel is lower than the predetermined threshold (Fig. 2, the sensor 50 is located higher in the case as shown due to the fuel being ammonia). This allows for detection of an ammonia fuel leak (¶ [0004]).
Therefore, in the case where ammonia is being used, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Klingbeil, which may use various fuels including ammonia, to include a fuel leak sensor in the upper portion of its engine case because it would allow for detection of an ammonia fuel leak.
Klingbeil and Kojima fail to specify if the fuel detector is disposed at a lower portion of the case when vapor specific gravity of the fuel is higher than a predetermined threshold.
However, Meguro discloses a system making use of ammonia (Pg. 1, ¶ 1), wherein the system includes a sensor 12 located at the ceiling of the inner wall 10 of its case so that it may detect leaking ammonia, wherein in a case where a toxic gas has a specific gravity higher than air, the sensor is installed on the floor surface (Pg. 3, ¶ 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Klingbeil to include a fuel leak detection sensor, such as in Kojima, wherein the fuel detection sensor’s location can vary, or be duplicated to various locations, in order to detect the various fuels that Klingbeil contemplates using (e.g. methanol, ammonia).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Klingbeil discloses the engine system according to claim 1, wherein the fuel detector detects the fuel that has leaked to the outside of the engine and in a vicinity of a crankshaft of the engine (Kojima, Fig. 2, the sensor 50 is shown detecting fuel in a “vicinity” of a crankshaft as it’s near the engine which contains a crankshaft, and as modified into Klingbeil would be within the engine department near leaking points such as the engine).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Klingbeil discloses the engine system according to claim 1, wherein the fuel detector detects the fuel that has leaked to the outside of the engine and in a vicinity of an explosion-proof valve of the engine (Kojima, Fig. 2, the sensor 50 is shown detecting fuel in a “vicinity” of an engine explosion-proof valve (e.g. exhaust valve) as it is near the engine which contains such a valve).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Klingbeil discloses the engine system according to claim 1, further comprising a notification portion that notifies a warning according to detection of the fuel by the fuel detector (Kojima, ¶ [0038] and Fig. 4, shown system issues an alarm).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Klingbeil discloses the engine system according to claim 1, further comprising a ventilation fan actuated according to detection of the fuel by the fuel detector (Kojima, ¶ [0035], a radiator fan may act as a ventilation fan due to detection).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Klingbeil discloses the engine system according to claim 1, wherein the fuel is either ammonia or methanol (Klingbeil ¶ [0024], the engine may operate on ammonia or methanol).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingbeil in view of Kojima in view of Meguro and further in view of Roberts (US 2,189,406).
Regarding claims 2-3, the modified Klingbeil discloses the engine system according to claim 1, including wherein the engine system includes: an intake inlet for taking in air to be supplied to the engine from the outside of the case (Klingbeil, Fig. 2, intake 118) but fails to disclose a ventilation outlet that is disposed independently of the intake inlet and is used to ventilate inside of the case and discharge gas inside the case to the outside of the case, a ventilation discharge passage that allows the ventilation outlet leading to the inside of the case to communicate with outside of a building, a housing, or a mobile object in which the engine is installed, wherein the ventilation discharge passage is sealed except for both ends including the ventilation outlet.
Roberts shows an internal combustion engine powered vehicle having an engine within its front compartment which acts as a case (Fig. 2, shown), wherein the engine compartment 20 contains a secondary port 8 which ventilates gases within the compartment to outside the vehicle, wherein vent 8 is shown to be sealed on both its inlet and outlet for discharging the gas to outside the case 20 (Fig. 2, shown). This design allows for ventilation of the vehicle engine compartments (Col. 1, Lns. 15-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the engine of the modified Klingbeil to include ventilation ports, like those of Roberts, because it would have allowed for improved ventilation of the engine compartment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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
Prosecution Insights