DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the amended claims filed on 6/5/2025.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19-21 and 43-48 are currently pending.
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
Claims 8 and 15 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 claims 8 and 15, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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(s) 1-4, 6, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 43 - 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirschner et al. (US 2019/0211721) in further view of Bick et al. (US 2023/0203971)
As to claim 1 Kirschner discloses an internal combustion engine (figure 1 #10) comprising:
a crankcase (figure 1 #14);
a pump (figure 1 #22) configured to transport blow-by gas including the gaseous fuel contained within the crankcase therefrom to an outlet (paragraph 0040); and
a controller configured to control the pump output based on one or more determined operating parameters of the engine (paragraph 0042 and 0043).
However is silent to the going being a gaseous fuel engine.
Bick discloses that it was known in the art at the time of filing to have a gaseous fuel internal combustion engine (paragraph 0011) with a crankcase ventilation means including a pump the same as Kirschner.
As to claim 2 Kirschner discloses the engine of claim 1, wherein the one or more determined operating parameters include one or more of an engine speed, and an engine torque. (paragraph 0019)
As to claim 3 Kirschner discloses the engine of claims claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the pump based on the one or more determined operating parameters via a look-up table or a map stored in a memory (the maps of the programs are shown in the figures)
As to claim 4 Kirschner discloses the engine of claim 1, wherein the pump is a variable speed pump (paragraph 0018), and wherein the controller is configured to control a speed of the pump based on the one or more determined operating parameters, optionally, wherein the controller is configured to determine a setpoint pump speed based on the one or more determined operating parameters, and control the speed of the pump to correspond substantially to the setpoint pump speed (paragraph 0052).
As to claim 6 Kirschner discloses the engine of any preceding claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the pump output based on a setpoint flowrate of expelled gas (paragraph 0018) downstream of the crankcase (figure 1 #20), optionally wherein the controller is configured to determine a setpoint parameter indicative of flowrate of expelled gas downstream of the crankcase (paragraph 0052)
.
As to claim 15 Kirschner discloses the engine of claim 4, wherein the controller determines a maximum setpoint pump speed or a maximum setpoint flowrate when the one or more determined operating conditions correspond to a maximum output torque of the engine and/or speed of the engine (as disclosed in claim 4 above)
However, Kirschner is silent to the exact range being, optionally, wherein the maximum output torque of the engine is at an engine speed of the engine in the range of 1000 to 2500 RPM, optionally in the range of 1100 to 1400 RPM, for example, approximately 1150 to 1200 RPM.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case the it is recognized that it is critically important that the pressure in the crankcase remains within certain limits to prevent engine damage (paragraph 0003). Each engine/pump combination will require a different RMP to optimize the pressure to prevent damage. Therefore, it would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to maximize the RPM for each engine/pump design to prevent damage. The prior art ranges are just routine optimization.
As to claim 17 Kirschner discloses the engine of any preceding claim 1, wherein the pump is an electric pump; optionally, wherein the pump is a side channel pump (running a channel on the side of the engine as shown in figure 1) and/or wherein the pump is positioned downstream of the crankcase (shown in figure 1),
However, Kirschner is silent to such that the pump induces a below-atmospheric pressure in the crankcase; optionally, wherein the pump is configured to induce a pressure in the crankcase in the range of - 100 to - 10 mbar relative to atmospheric pressure, optionally, -80 to -20 mbar relative to atmospheric pressure.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case the it is recognized that it is critically important that the pressure in the crankcase remains within certain limits to prevent engine damage (paragraph 0003). Each engine/pump combination will require a different pressure to optimize the pressure to prevent damage. Therefore, it would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to maximize the pressure for each engine/pump design to prevent damage. The prior art ranges are just routine optimization.
As to claim 19 Bick discloses the engine of claim 1 as shown above,
Bick discloses the gaseous fuel for the gaseous engine being hydrogen (paragraph 0011).
As to claim 20 Kirschner discloses a method of controlling a flowrate of expelled gas transported from a crankcase (figure 1#14) of a gaseous fuel internal combustion engine (figure 1 #10), the expelled gas including the gaseous fuel, the engine comprising a pump (figure 1 #22) arranged to transport the expelled gas from the crankcase to an outlet, the method comprising the steps of:
determining one or more operating parameters of the engine; and
controlling the pump output based on the one or more determined operating parameters. (paragraph 0018)
As to claim 21 Kirschner discloses the method of claim 20, further comprising the steps of:
determining an actual parameter indicative of a flowrate of the expelled gas downstream of the crankcase or ventilation gas upstream of the crankcase (paragraph 0019);
determining a setpoint parameter indicative of flowrate of expelled gas downstream of the crankcase (paragraph 0043); and
controlling the pump output such that the actual parameter indicative of the flowrate corresponds substantially to the setpoint parameter indicative of flowrate (paragraph 0043).
As to claim 43 Kirschner discloses a gaseous fuel internal combustion engine, comprising:
a crankcase (figure 1 #14); and
a ventilation system (figure 1 #18) comprising a gas pressure source and a ventilation path, the gas pressure source configured to transport blow-by gas (figure 1 #20), including the gaseous fuel, contained within the crankcase (figure 1 #14) therefrom via the ventilation path as an expelled gas, wherein the ventilation system further comprises
a monitoring system configured to monitor an actual parameter indicative of a flowrate of the expelled gas (figure 2), and
wherein the monitoring system is configured to provide one or more outputs based on the monitored actual parameter (paragraph 0042).
As to claim 44 Kirschner discloses the engine of claim 43, wherein the monitored actual parameter corresponds to a pressure differential between first and second portions of the ventilation path (paragraph 0063), optionally, wherein the ventilation path comprises a flow restrictor (figure 8 #82) configured to induce the pressure differential. (paragraph 0058)
As to claim 45 Kirschner discloses the engine of claim 44, wherein the monitoring system comprises a first pressure take-off point (figure 1 #22) and a second pressure take-off point (figure 1 #24) in the ventilation path, wherein the pressure differential corresponds to the pressure difference between the first and second pressure take-off points (paragraph 0050), and wherein the first pressure take-off point is spaced upstream from the flow restrictor (in the crankcase, paragraph 0050)
and/or wherein the second pressure take-off point is spaced downstream from the flow restrictor (at the separating device #24, paragraph 0050); optionally, wherein the flow restrictor (figure 7 #82) is downstream of the gas pressure source (figure 1 #14), and wherein the first pressure take-off point is adjacent an outlet of the gas pressure source (paragraph 0050).
As to claim 46 Kirschner discloses the engine of claim 45,
However, Kirschner is silent to a distance along the ventilation path between the first and second pressure take-off points is at least two (e.g. three or more, or four or more) times greater than a distance along the ventilation path between an inlet and an outlet of the flow restrictor.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
The positions of the pressure reading points would still read the pressure it would not change the operation of the device therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose a location for each measuring point according to simple design choice.)
As to claim 47 Kirschner discloses the engine of claims 44, wherein the flow restrictor is an oil separator (figure 1 #24) configured to reduce a concentration of oil in the expelled gas in the ventilation path.
As to claim 48 Kirschner discloses the engine of claim 43, wherein the one or more outputs comprises an alert output, and wherein the monitoring system provides the alert output if the difference between an actual value and a setpoint value exceeds a predetermined threshold, for example when the difference between the actual value of flowrate and the setpoint value of the flowrate is greater than a predetermined threshold, or the actual parameter indicative of flowrate and the setpoint parameter indicative of flowrate is greater than a predetermined threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights