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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on July 28, 2025 for application number 19/151,359. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on {July 28, 2025} and {December 19, 2025} were submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023-086167 filed on May 25, 2023.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Claims 3-9 are objected as allowable subject matter.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 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.
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 enough 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 enough 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 enough 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 enough structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“First controller”, “Second controller”, and “Switching device” in claims 1-10.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (BÖCKMANN – DE 102021120526 A1).
Regarding claim 1, BÖCKMANN discloses:
A mixed-combustion electronic control device, comprising:
a first controller (First fuel D injector) that controls combustion of a first fuel (First Fuel D: Fig. 1); and
a second controller (engine control unit: [0022-0045]) that controls mixed combustion of the first fuel (First Fuel D: Fig. 1) and a second fuel (Second Fuel S: Fig. 1),
wherein the second controller (engine control unit: [0022-0045]) stores, for each engine operating condition, observation values corresponding to combustion timing (combustion timing is interpreted as ignition delay period: [0022-0045]: “In a first evaluation strategy, it is provided that the differential heating curve is calculated from the cylinder pressure curve, from which in the working stroke - as a characterizing variable - a start of combustion and an ignition delay in an ignition delay period of the fuel mixture with a start of combustion of the first fuel and a start of combustion of the second Fuel is compared and the proportions of the fuels are deduced as a function of the ignition delay determined, with the difference in time between the respective start of combustion of the first and second fuel forming the ignition delay period” and “In other words, based on the different times t .sub.Bx of the start of combustion of pure diesel fuel D (combustion start at time t .sub.BD ) and pure synthetic fuel S (combustion start at time t .sub.BS ), the ignition delay period Δt .sub.ZV is determined as a characteristic variable”) of the first fuel (First Fuel D: Fig. 1), learns observation values (The learning is made in BÖCKMANN by neural networks: [0022-0045]: “In a third evaluation strategy, it is provided that significant similarity features of the cylinder pressure curve - as a characterizing variable - are recognized and evaluated with the support of neural networks” and “Third evaluation strategy "Pattern recognition of characteristic features of the cylinder pressure curve p .sub.Z /°KW [bar/°KW] supported by neural networks": Provision is made for evaluating patterns of the cylinder pressure curve p .sub.Z /°KW, in particular patterns that can be significantly evaluated by characteristic features of the cylinder pressure curve p .sub.Z /°KW, supported by neural networks” and “”) corresponding to the combustion timing of the first fuel (First Fuel D: Fig. 1) suitable for each of the operating conditions, determines, from the current operating conditions and learning situation, whether to perform the mixed combustion, and in a case where it is determined that the mixed combustion is to be performed, controls the mixed combustion by using the learned observation values ([0022-0045]).
Regarding claim 2, BÖCKMANN disclose the mixed-combustion electronic control device according to claim 1, and further on BÖCKMANN also discloses:
wherein the observation values are an extreme value of a rotation speed of a crankshaft and an extreme value timing indicating the timing at which the rotation speed is at the extreme value, and wherein the second controller detects the extreme value and the extreme value timing, stores the extreme value and the extreme value timing for each of the operating conditions, and learns the extreme value and the extreme value timing suitable for each of the operating conditions ([0022-0045]: “In this procedure, it is provided according to the invention to form the mathematical derivation dpz/Δα [bar/°KW] of the cylinder pressure p .sub.Z plotted against the crank angle °KW for the respective constant operating point and to use it according to the invention as follows: For clarification are in the 1 according to the characteristic curve K .sub.pZ-x the cylinder pressure p .sub.Z plotted continuously over the crank angle °KW (cylinder pressure profile p .sub.Z /°KW in [bar over °KW), which is also analogous to the first procedure already described for calculating the differential heating profile dQ [J/m .sup.3 x°KW] was used, as well as its mathematical derivation dpz/Δα [bar/°KW] according to the crank angle °KW for the several constant operating points in the exemplary embodiment for the exemplary operating point 2000 revolutions [1/min] and one Torque M = 70 [Nm]) for a diesel fuel D used (without a synthetic component) K .sub.pZ-D and for a synthetic fuel S (without a diesel component)”).
Regarding claim 10, BÖCKMANN disclose the mixed-combustion electronic control device according to claim 1, and further on BÖCKMANN also discloses:
wherein the engine drives a generator, and wherein the operating conditions include one or more of generated power, generated current, excess air ratio, engine speed, and torque ([0022-0045]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP H05187265 A – MATSUMOTO
US 11,655,775 B1 – Puente
US 2021/0095610 A1 – HASHIMOTO
CN 110107418 A – HUANG
JP 2019167850 A - KATO
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights