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 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 5 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 5 recites in the 3rd line of the claim “by heating the intake manifold by utilizing the waste heat from the engine, the fuel supplied from the storage unit to the engine is vaporized, or the vaporized fuel is maintained in a gaseous state”. It is unclear if the invention is now vaporizing the fuel twice, wherein claim 5 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites a vaporizer, that vaporizes fuel from a heat exchange medium, wherein the heat exchange medium is heated by utilizing waste heat from the engine. Wherein claim 1 recites “the vaporizer is configured to vaporize the fuel supplied from the storage unit to the engine by heating the fuel using the heat exchange medium.”. The Specification does not recite nor reasonably convey how one of ordinary skill in the art can vaporize a vaporized fuel. Wherein claim 1 recites the vaporizer is to vaporize the fuel and supply said fuel to the engine, and claim 5 further recites that the intake manifold is vaporizing the fuel, which has been already vaporized. The Specification does not recite multiple lines of fuel to go through multiple respective vaporizers, and does not recite how one can vaporize a vaporized fuel.
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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites in the 3rd line of the claim “by heating the intake manifold by utilizing the waste heat from the engine, the fuel supplied from the storage unit to the engine is vaporized, or the vaporized fuel is maintained in a gaseous state”. It is unclear if the invention is now vaporizing the fuel twice, wherein claim 5 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites a vaporizer, that vaporizes fuel from a heat exchange medium, wherein the heat exchange medium is heated by utilizing waste heat from the engine. Wherein claim 1 recites “the vaporizer is configured to vaporize the fuel supplied from the storage unit to the engine by heating the fuel using the heat exchange medium.” It is unclear if the fuel is vaporized in the heat exchanger, and then vaporized fuel is to enter an intake manifold to vaporize the vaporized fuel.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al (US 8,857,162 hereinafter “Brown”)
In regards to claim 1:
Brown teaches an engine device that supplies a fuel to drive an engine (102), the engine device comprising: a storage unit (142) that stores the fuel in a liquid state, a vaporizer (152); and a heat exchanger (134) configured to heat a heat exchange medium (liquid 112) by utilizing waste heat (exhaust 120) from the engine and to supply the heat exchange medium (liquid 112) heated by the waste heat to the vaporizer (152), wherein the vaporizer (152) is configured to vaporize the fuel supplied from the storage unit to the engine by heating the fuel using the heat exchange medium (Figure 3 shows the steps 315-355 of directing exhaust to a heat exchanger to heat a coolant to a desired temperature and then using that heated coolant to vaporize liquid natural gas).
In regards to claim 2:
Brown teaches the vaporized fuel is maintained in a gaseous state by utilizing the waste heat from the engine.
In regards to claim 3:
Brown teaches the waste heat from the engine is heat of an exhaust gas of the engine (Step 315 recites the waste heat being exhaust and Figure 2 shows the exhaust from the engine being directed to the air to liquid heat exchanger 234).
In regards to claim 6:
Brown teaches part or all of a flow path of the fuel from the storage unit through to the engine is formed including a thermal insulation structure (Col 3, Line 59 – Col 4, Line 3 recites “LNG tank 144 is typically a double-walled, vacuum-insulated pressure vessel.” Wherein the part of the flow path at the storage unit is thermally insulated, and although a specific level of insulation is not recited by Brown or in the claims, the conduits that deliver the fuel to the engine will have a level of insulation, wherein all materials insulate to a degree and no materials have perfect insulation).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Okura et al (US 4,099,502 hereinafter “Okura”).
In regards to claim 5:
Brown does not teach an intake manifold that supplies air to the engine
Okura teaches an intake manifold (33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the engine of Brown to have an intake manifold as taught by Okura in order to collect the intake air. Furthermore, the language of “by heating the intake manifold” is functional language and although Brown does not explicitly teach an intake manifold, intake manifolds are common for engines. Okura further teaches that an intake manifold heated by waste heat from an engine (exhaust gases) to vaporize an air and fuel mixture in an intake manifold. And in this combination, any non-vaporized fuel that is to be delivered to the engine, will be heated to a vaporizing temperature prior to entering the combustion chamber of the engine.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Watanabe et al (US 2003/0188726 hereinafter “Watanabe”).
In regards to claim 7:
Brown does not teach a heater that performs heating when the engine is started in order to vaporize the fuel supplied from the storage unit to the engine.
Watanabe teaches a heater (first heater with plate-like heater 50) that performs heating when the engine is started in order to vaporize fuel supplied from a storage unit (24) to an engine (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the system of Brown to have a heater as taught by Watanabe in order to heat a fuel during a start up when the exhaust and coolant is still cold (Paragraph [0010] of Watanabe recites “preferably, the first heater is an electric heater, the second heater uses as a heat source heat generated from the internal combustion engine, the first heater vaporizes the fuel in starting the internal combustion engine, and the second heater vaporizes the fuel after warming up the internal combustion engine.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Svensson et al (US 11,649,761 hereinafter “Svensson”).
In regards to claim 8:
Brown does not teach the fuel to be ammonia or methanol.
Svensson teaches a fuel that is methanol (Col 3 Lines 60-65 recites “The intake manifold 122 supplies a methanol/air mixture 126 comprising methanol 158 and air 130”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the fuel of Brown be methanol as taught by Svensson in order to provide a known alternative fuel for combustion in an engine with low production costs (Col 1, Lines 26-41 of Svensson recites “For example, methanol has relatively low production costs and can be less expensive to produce relative to other alternative fuels.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2 of Remarks, filed 7/7/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC 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 in view of newly found prior art. Applicant has amended the independent claim to recite that a vaporizer receives a heated medium, wherein the heated medium is first heated by waste heat from the engine. Newly found prior art addresses this limitation, wherein exhaust heat from the engine heats a coolant, and the heated coolant heats a fuel to be vaporized.
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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights