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 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.
Claims 8, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 29 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.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites “the extended operation period.” Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, does not recite an extended operation of the engine, and the limitation therefore lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "optionally"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites “the extended operation of the engine.” Claim 19, from which claim 22 depends, does not recite an extended operation of the engine, and the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites “the extended operation of the engine.” Neither claim 20 nor claim 19 recites an extended operation of the engine, and the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 25
Claim 25 recites “during the extended operation.” Neither claim 20 nor claim 19 recites an extended operation of the engine, and the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 26
Claim 26 recites “the fuel ignition device.” Neither claim 20 nor claim 19 recites a fuel ignition device, and the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 29
Claim 29 recites “the fuel ignition device” in two places. Neither claim 20 nor claim 19 recites a fuel ignition device, and the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 13 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dillen et al. (US 2023/0193840).
Dillen discloses:
Claim 1
An engine shutdown system for a hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine (paragraphs [0015] and [0028]), the system comprising:
a controller (paragraphs [0043]-[0044]);
wherein upon receipt of a standard engine shutdown command, the controller is configured to instruct the clearing of excess hydrogen fuel from a fuel delivery system of the engine as part of an engine shutdown process (operator or automatic engine-off command, paragraph [0061]; valves 332 and 336 closed, injection continued until line pressure is atmospheric, paragraph [0063]).
Claim 2
The engine shutdown system of claim 1 wherein the system further comprises:
at least one fuel ignition device in communication with the controller (paragraph [0022]);
a fuel delivery system in communication with the controller (paragraph [0063]);
wherein the system is configured such that upon receipt of an engine shutdown command, the controller is configured to instruct the ceasing of the supply of hydrogen fuel into the fuel delivery system and is configured to allow extended operation of the engine beyond the ceasing of the supply of hydrogen so as to clear excess hydrogen held within the fuel delivery system by combustion (paragraphs [0061], [0063] and [0086]).
Claim 11
The engine shutdown system of claim 2, wherein the controller permits operation for a pre-determined period or for a predetermined number of engine revolutions (paragraphs [0064] and [0066]) and/or wherein the controller monitors a fuel pressure in the fuel delivery system and permits operation until a predetermined pressure of the fuel is reached (pressure sensor 342, paragraphs [0063] and [0072]).
Claim 13
The engine shutdown system of Claim 2, wherein the fuel delivery system comprises a fuel injector in fluid communication with a common fuel rail (second fuel line portion 338, paragraphs [0030] and [0049]) and the controller instructs a closing of a supply of fuel upstream of the common fuel rail during the extended operation (paragraph [0063]).
Claim 30
A hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine comprising an engine shutdown system according to claim 1 (paragraphs [0015] and [0028]).
Rejection #2
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 19-21, 26, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwaki et al. (US 5,088,452).
Iwaki discloses:
Claim 1
An engine shutdown system for a hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine (col. 1, lines 10-12), the system comprising:
a controller (controller 33, col. 8, lines 48-53);
wherein upon receipt of a standard engine shutdown command, the controller is configured to instruct the clearing of excess hydrogen fuel from a fuel delivery system of the engine as part of an engine shutdown process (col. 10, lines 24-30 and 46-53).
Claim 2
The engine shutdown system of claim 1 wherein the system further comprises:
at least one fuel ignition device in communication with the controller (spark plug 31 and ignitor 35, col. 8, lines 50-52);
a fuel delivery system in communication with the controller (electromagnetic control valve 25, col. 8, lines 53-59);
wherein the system is configured such that upon receipt of an engine shutdown command, the controller is configured to instruct the ceasing of the supply of hydrogen fuel into the fuel delivery system and is configured to allow extended operation of the engine beyond the ceasing of the supply of hydrogen so as to clear excess hydrogen held within the fuel delivery system by combustion (col. 10, lines 29-45).
Claim 11
The engine shutdown system of claim 2, wherein the controller permits operation for a pre-determined period or for a predetermined number of engine revolutions and/or wherein the controller monitors a fuel pressure in the fuel delivery system and permits operation until a predetermined pressure of the fuel is reached (predetermined number of rotations after valve 25 closes, col. 10, lines 61-67).
Claim 19
An engine control system for a hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine (col. 1, lines 10-12), the system comprising:
a controller (controller 33, col. 8, lines 48-53);
wherein, the controller is configured to confirm if excess hydrogen has been cleared from the engine prior to a start of the engine, and if clearing of excess hydrogen cannot be confirmed, the controller is configured to instruct a hydrogen purge operation of the engine prior to permitting a restart of the engine (idle rotation by starter 34 before sparking, col. 9, lines 3-15; col. 10, lines 7-13).
Claim 20
The engine control system of claim 19, wherein upon receipt of a standard engine shutdown command, the controller is configured to instruct the clearing of excess hydrogen from a fuel delivery system of the engine as part of an engine shutdown process (col. 10, lines 24-30 and 46-53).
Claim 21
The engine control system of claim 19, further comprising at least one fuel ignition device in communication with the controller (col. 8, lines 50-52); and a hydrogen fuel delivery system in communication with the controller (col. 8, lines 53-59); wherein the system is configured such that upon receipt of an engine shutdown command the controller is configured to instruct the ceasing of the supply of fuel into the fuel delivery system and is configured to allow an extended operation of the engine beyond the ceasing of the supply of fuel so as to combust fuel held within the fuel delivery system (col. 10, lines 26-57).
Claim 26
The engine control system of claim 20, wherein the controller is configured to instruct the cranking of the engine without instructing the sparking of the fuel ignition device so as to purge the engine of hydrogen prior to permitting a start of the engine (col. 9, lines 3-15), and, optionally, wherein the controller is further configured to instruct the hydrogen fuel delivery system not to supply fuel during the purge operation (col. 8, lines 33-35; col. 8, line 67 through col. 9, line 2).
Claim 28
The engine control system of claim 20, wherein the controller is configured to instruct the purge operation for a predetermined time or for a predetermined number of engine revolutions (col. 9, lines 9-13; col. 10, lines 9-13).
Claim 30
A hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine comprising an engine shutdown system according to claim 1 (engine 29 run on hydrogen from MH tank 21, col. 10, lines 21-23).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Stockner (US 2014/0316677).
Claim 10
Dillen discloses the engine shutdown system of claim 2, wherein the system comprises a plurality of fuel ignition devices corresponding to a plurality of engine cylinders (hydrogen injected and spark ignited in each cylinder, paragraph [0060]).
Dillen does not disclose that the controller is configured to instruct ceasing of the sparking of one of the fuel ignition devices for at least part of the extended operation of the engine.
However, Stockner discloses a controller that renders one or more of the engine cylinders inactive for at least part of the extended operation of the engine during the shutdown run-on, the fuel being injected in less than all of the engine cylinders (cylinder cutout strategy, paragraph [0033]; FIG. 8, block 75, paragraph [0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the engine shutdown system disclosed by Dillen with the cylinder cutout during the shutdown run-on disclosed by Stockner in order to burn down rail pressure faster per engine cycle in order to prevent leakage of gaseous fuel during shutdown (paragraphs [0002] and [0033]).
Claim(s) 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki as applied to claims 1 and 19 above.
Iwaki does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to log in a memory once the operation is completed.
However the examiner takes Official Notice that recording in a memory the completion of a controller-executed routine such as the claimed hydrogen purging routine, is well known in the art, and often used to provide a record of routine completion for diagnostic and control purposes.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the system disclosed by Iwaki to log in a memory once the operation is completed in order to record completion of the purge for diagnostic and restart control purposes, as the application of a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki as applied to claim 20 above, in view of Dillen (US 2023/0193840) and Stockner (US 2014/0316677). This rejection is made as best understood in light of the indefiniteness of “the extended operation” identified in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 23 above (MPEP 2143.03).
Claim 23
Iwaki discloses the engine control system of claim 20, wherein upon receipt of a standard engine shutdown command the controller is configured to instruct the clearing of excess hydrogen from a fuel delivery system of the engine as part of an engine shutdown process (col. 10, lines 24-30 and 46-53).
Iwaki does not disclose that the system comprises a plurality of fuel ignition devices corresponding to a plurality of engine cylinders.
However, Dillen discloses a plurality of fuel ignition devices corresponding to a plurality of engine cylinders (hydrogen injected and spark ignited in each cylinder, paragraphs [0022] and [0060]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the engine control system disclosed by Iwaki with the per-cylinder spark ignition disclosed by Dillen in order to increase engine power output.
Iwaki and Dillen do not disclose that the controller is configured to instruct ceasing of the sparking of one of the fuel ignition devices for at least part of the extended operation of the engine.
However, Stockner discloses a controller that renders one or more of the engine cylinders inactive for at least part of the extended operation of the engine during the shutdown run-on, the fuel being injected in less than all of the engine cylinders (paragraphs [0033] and [0035]). In the spark ignition engine of the Iwaki/Dillen combination a cylinder is made inactive by withholding its fuel and its spark.
Therefore it would have been further obvious to modify the Iwaki/Dillen system with the cylinder cutout during the shutdown run-on disclosed by Stockner in order to combust held hydrogen faster per engine cycle (paragraph [0033]).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki as applied to claim 20 above, in view of Dillen (US 2023/0193840). This rejection is made as best understood in light of the indefiniteness of “the extended operation” identified in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 25 above (MPEP 2143.03).
Claim 25
Iwaki discloses the engine control system of claim 20, wherein upon receipt of a standard engine shutdown command the controller is configured to instruct the clearing of excess hydrogen from a fuel delivery system of the engine as part of an engine shutdown process (col. 10, lines 24-30 and 46-53).
Iwaki does not disclose that the fuel delivery system comprises a fuel injector in fluid communication with a common fuel rail and that the controller instructs a closing of a supply of fuel upstream of the common fuel rail during the extended operation; Iwaki is carbureted (col. 8, lines 37-40).
However, Dillen discloses that the fuel delivery system comprises a fuel injector in fluid communication with a common fuel rail (second fuel line portion 338, central manifold injection, paragraphs [0049] and [0030]) and that the controller instructs a closing of a supply of fuel upstream of the common fuel rail during the extended operation (valves 332 and 336 closed while injection continues until line pressure is atmospheric, paragraph [0063]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the engine control system disclosed by Iwaki with the common-rail injection disclosed by Dillen in order to precisely meter hydrogen fuel to the cylinders (paragraph [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no prior art of record discloses or makes obvious instructing a reduction of lambda during extended operation of the engine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIZO BINDA VILAKAZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3926. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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 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 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.
/SIZO B VILAKAZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights