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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/258875 to Wartsila Finland Oy (Wartsila) in view of US 2022/0195899 to Osada.
Regarding claim 1, Wartsila discloses a system comprising an engine (1, fig. 1) operable with a fuel containing hydrogen (col. 6, line 7), the system comprising:
a crankcase (4, fig. 1) and a cylinder head (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an engine with cylinders will have a cylinder head) of the engine;
an engine intake passage (6, fig. 1) through which air is suctioned into the engine;
a crankcase intake passage (8, fig. 1) branching from the engine intake passage and through which the air is introduced into the crankcase;
a dilution air valve (9, fig. 1) disposed in the crankcase intake passage and configured to open and close the crankcase intake passage;
a decompression valve (15, fig. 12; col. 7, lines 24-32) disposed downstream of the dilution air valve in the crankcase intake passage;
a compressor (3a, fig. 1) disposed upstream of a branch portion at which the crankcase intake passage branches from the engine intake passage;
a hydrogen sensor (fuel sensor 17, fig. 1) configured to detect hydrogen concentration inside the crankcase;
a control device (16, fig. 1) configured to control opening and closing of the dilution air valve based on the hydrogen concentration detected by the hydrogen sensor (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 4).
However, Wartsila does not disclose explicitly which Osada discloses:
a communication path (10a, figs. 1, 6; [30]-[31]) configured to allow an inside of the crankcase to communicate with an inside of the cylinder head
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the communication path of Osada in the system of Wartsila so that the blow by gas can be released into the atmosphere ([36]; Osada).
Regarding claim 2, Wartsila combined with Osada discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein when the hydrogen concentration detected by the hydrogen sensor reaches a threshold value or higher, the control device performs control to open the dilution air valve to a predetermined degree or more (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 4; Wartsila).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Wartsila combined with Osada discloses the system according to claims 1 and 2, respectively, further comprising:
a cylinder head communication passage (10, fig. 6; Osada) configured to allow the inside of the cylinder head to communicate with an upstream side of the compressor in the engine intake passage; and
a filter (11a, figs. 1, 6; [35]; Osada) disposed in the cylinder head communication passage.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Wartsila combined with Osada discloses the system according to claims 6 and 14, but does not explicitly disclose that the hydrogen sensor is disposed downstream of the filter in the cylinder head communication passage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the hydrogen sensor disposed downstream of the filter in the cylinder head communication passage, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Wartsila discloses a control method for a system comprising an engine (1, fig. 1) operable with a fuel containing hydrogen (col. 6, line 7), the system comprising:
a crankcase (4, fig. 1) and a cylinder head (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an engine with cylinders will have a cylinder head) of the engine;
an engine intake passage (6, fig. 1) through which air is suctioned into the engine;
a crankcase intake passage (8, fig. 1) branching from the engine intake passage and through which the air is introduced into the crankcase;
a dilution air valve (9, fig. 1) disposed in the crankcase intake passage and configured to open and close the crankcase intake passage;
a decompression valve (15, fig. 12; col. 7, lines 24-32) disposed downstream of the dilution air valve in the crankcase intake passage;
a compressor (3a, fig. 1) disposed upstream of a branch portion at which the crankcase intake passage branches from the engine intake passage;
a hydrogen sensor (fuel sensor 17, fig. 1) configured to detect hydrogen concentration inside the crankcase;
the control method comprising:
acquiring the hydrogen concentration inside the crankcase (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 4);
determining whether or not the hydrogen concentration is a threshold value or higher (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 4);
opening the dilution air valve when it is determined that the hydrogen concentration is the threshold value or higher (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 4); and
closing the dilution air valve when it is determined that the hydrogen concentration is lower than the threshold value (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 4).
However, Wartsila does not disclose explicitly which Osada discloses:
a communication path (10a, figs. 1, 6; [30]-[31]) configured to allow an inside of the crankcase to communicate with an inside of the cylinder head
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the communication path of Osada in the system of Wartsila so that the blow by gas can be released into the atmosphere ([36]; Osada).
Claim(s) 4, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wartsila combined with Osada as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, and further in view of JP 2019-007396 to Yanmar Co. Ltd (Yanmar) (Machine translation provided by applicant has been used).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Wartsila combined with Osada discloses the system according to claims 1 and 2, respectively, further comprising: a cylinder head communication passage (10, fig. 6; Osada) configured to allow the inside of the cylinder head to communicate with an upstream side of the compressor in the engine intake passage;
a cylinder head exhaust passage (from 11a to 10b, fig. 6, Osada) branching from the cylinder head communication passage and through which the air inside the cylinder head is discharged; and
However, Wartsila combined with Osada does not explicitly disclose which Yanmar discloses:
a switching valve (15, fig. 1) disposed at a branch portion at which the cylinder head exhaust passage branches from the cylinder head communication passage and configured to switch between a first path (13, fig. 1) through which the cylinder head exhaust passage is exposed to the atmosphere and a second path (12, fig. 1) through which the cylinder head communication passage connects to the upstream side of the compressor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the switching valve of Yanmar in the device of Wartsila combined with Osada so as to avoid unnecessary deterioration of engine efficiency and reduction of engine output, and appropriately suppressing deterioration of the performance and operating state of the supercharger due to oil coking ([5]; Yanmar).
Claim(s) 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wartsila combined with Osada as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, and further in view of JPS 61-197709 to Honda Motor Co Ltd. (Honda) (Machine translation provided by applicant has been used for translational purposes).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Wartsila combined with Osada discloses the system according to claims 1 and 2, respectively, but does not explicitly disclose which Honda discloses:
a pressure relief valve (10, fig. 1; machine translation) configured to release the air inside the crankcase before pressure inside the crankcase reaches a predetermined pressure or higher.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the pressure relied valve of Honda in the device of Wartsila combined with Osada for discharging fluctuating pressure inside the engine to the outside, and a blow-by gas recirculation device so as to minimize pressure and temperature fluctuations (see “Industrial application field” and “Conventional Technology” part of machine translation of Honda).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 10, 11, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,655,515 to Yaguchi et al.
US 9,957,905 to Makihara
US 2020/0149486 to Tachibana et al.
US 2015/0053188 to Kuribayashi et al.
US 2012/0247438 to Konohara
All references above describe general state of art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 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.
/DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights