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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by the Applicant listed below:
April 4, 2025
September 11, 2025
Drawings
Figures are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1) and 37 § C.F.R. 1.84(l), which requires the drawings be in black, and that all drawings be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, solid black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. The replacement drawings are pixelated because applicant did not use black (RGB = 000 or Hex = 000000). When black is not used, the dithering used to convert applicant's grayscale image to black and white will add white pixels to try to estimate applicant's "gray" color. Therefore, applicant must be sure to use only black and white.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The subjective term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim as vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (), hereinafter “” in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A device for applying a closed-loop combustion control for an engine having a plurality of cylinders, () comprising:
a plurality of fuel injectors () for supplying fuel into each one of the plurality of cylinders of the engine, See at least ¶¶
a plurality of pressure sensors (), wherein in or at each of the plurality of cylinders one of the plurality of pressure sensors () is arranged for determining the pressure therein, See at least ¶¶ and
an electronic control unit () for receiving the sensor values obtained by the plurality of pressure sensors () and for controlling injection parameters of the plurality of fuel injectors, See at least Fig 1, ¶¶
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to individually perform a closed-loop combustion control strategy for each of the cylinders of the engine, See at least Fig 4 ¶¶0037-
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to, when performing the closed-loop combustion control strategy of each cylinder, apply a three level combustion control strategy for controlling at least one injection parameter of the cylinder See at least (521; Fig 4), ¶¶ using:
a base compensation map See at least ¶¶; “End of line Injection Adjustment” 520; Fig 4, comprising individual compensation values See at least ¶¶; ΔQEIA for the injection parameter of each one of the cylinders,
an adaptive map comprising correction values for the injection parameter of each one of the cylinders, See at least ¶; “a map 530 (see FIG. 5) is generated (one map for each engine cylinder/injector)”
the correction values being determined during operation of the engine, See at least ¶¶; Fig 4; “Once the "Cylinder Balancing" routine has estimated an injector fuel quantity deviation ΔQCB at block 524, such value is stored in the map 530 at block 525. The enabling conditions for such a value to be stored in the map are that the engine is warmed up and operates in a steady state.” and
a feedback controller (Fig. 4: feedback control involving blocks 523 and 524)
fail to explicitly disclose:
feedback-controlling the injection parameter based on a sensor value of the corresponding pressure sensor to obtain a target value for a combustion parameter of the cylinder.
However disclose:
feedback-controlling the injection parameter based on a sensor value of an injection pressure sensor or driveline noise to obtain a target value for a combustion parameter of the cylinder. See at least
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to increase accuracy of engine state information utilized for control. See at least ¶¶ “a first variable is predefined based on a signal of a combustion chamber pressure sensor or a structure-borne noise sensor. This first variable characterizes the combustion process in the combustion chamber of at least one cylinder of the engine.” “First manipulated variable Ai is preferably a cylinder-specific manipulated variable”; Figs 3-4.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to increase accuracy of engine state information utilized for control. See at least ¶¶ “a first variable is predefined based on a signal of a combustion chamber pressure sensor or a structure-borne noise sensor. This first variable characterizes the combustion process in the combustion chamber of at least one cylinder of the engine.” “First manipulated variable Ai is preferably a cylinder-specific manipulated variable”; Figs 3-4; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim (as best understood by the examiner,
disclose:
wherein electronic control unit is configured to determine the correction values from a change of the feedback controller's filter coefficients over time at the same or a similar engine operating condition. See at least : Fig 5, ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electronic control unit provides the three-level control strategy for at least two injection parameters separately. See at least : ¶¶; injection pressure, energizing time
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to compensate one injection parameter depending on a change in the other parameter. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine a correction factor to adapt the base map to a fuel quality of the fuel used, and/or wherein the electronic control unit is configured to provide gain scheduling of the feedback controllers to adapt the reactivity of the feedback controllers between a steady state and a transient condition of the engine. See at least : ¶¶, Fig 5
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to process the sensor data received from the plurality of pressure sensors to determine at least one combustion parameter for each one of the plurality of cylinders. See at least : ¶¶ (heat amount is determined by sensed cylinder pressure)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the device further comprises at least one crankshaft position sensor for determining a crankshaft position, and
the electronic control unit is configured to determine the at least one combustion parameter for each one of the plurality of cylinders based on the sensor values of an associated pressure sensor and the crankshaft position sensor. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
An engine comprising a device according to claim 1. See at least : (110; Fig 1); : (100; Fig 1)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the injection parameters include fuel quantity and/or injection timing, the individual compensation values are used to adapt nominal control values of a base map common to all cylinders, and the correction values are used to correct the compensation values of the base compensation map. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to compensate injection timing depending on a change in fuel quantity. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the base map includes a fuel quantity base map, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to estimate the fuel quality on the basis of the sensor values of the pressure sensors. See at least : ¶¶-0057, Fig 5
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein combustion parameter is used as input for the feedback controller. See at least : ¶¶ 0051-0053
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above and further in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the combustion parameter is at least one out of: a maximum pressure that occurs in the cylinder's combustion chamber during the power stroke, an average pressure exerted on the cylinder's piston during the power stroke, a cylinder's crankshaft angle at which 50% of the fuel's energy has been released during the combustion process, and/or a cylinder's crankshaft angle at which 50% of the fuel mass has been burned during the combustion process.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to generate fuel quantity correction data to achieve cylinder balance See at least ¶. ()
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing as a combustion parameter in to generate fuel quantity correction data to achieve cylinder balance See at least ¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above and further in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to, when performing the closed-loop combustion control, control the plurality of fuel injectors with their respective injection parameters one after the other in a subsequent manner.
The combination of references discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of the combination of references. Namely, the technique of in order to balance cylinder torque. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of the combination of references would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in the combination of references to balance cylinder torque. See at least ¶¶, 0036 ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over , , and and as applied above and further in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to evaluate the plurality of cylinders with respect to at least one combustion parameter and to apply the closed-loop combustion control to the fuel injector of the cylinder having the greatest deviation from a target value of the combustion parameter.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to optimize engine performance and achieve a smooth running mode. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to optimize engine performance and achieve a smooth running mode. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to repeat said evaluation and the subsequent closed-loop combustion control to a specific fuel injector of a cylinder until all of the plurality of cylinders lie within a target range of the combustion parameter. See at least : ¶¶;
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of as applied above.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A method for applying a closed-loop combustion control to an engine, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
measuring the pressure in each one of the plurality of cylinders during a combustion cycle, See at least ¶¶; “a pressure sensor which outputs a signal characterizing the pressure in the combustion chamber of the particular cylinder is situated at each cylinder of the engine"; The cylinder pressure curves of all cylinders Pi are preferably detected individually by combustion chamber pressure sensors"
determining, based on the pressure values, at least one combustion parameter for each one of the plurality of cylinders See at least ¶¶; " "Signal P of pressure sensor 120 and signal W of angle sensor 122 are [processed to deliver] a signal QI" which is an actual heat amount "; and
performing a closed-loop combustion control using the combustion parameter as input to individually control at least one injection parameter of the respective cylinder, See at least Figs 3-4 illustrating closed loop control, ¶¶ "Setpoint heat amounts QS and QI are compared in node 310. [ ... ] Based on the difference between setpoint and actual values, the regulator computes a manipulated variable Ai [defined in § 0018 as being "preferably the activation duration and/or the activation start of an injection"] [ ... ] The amount of the pilot injection or the activation time and/or the start of pilot injection may be adjusted as appropriate."
wherein, when applying the closed-loop combustion control, the injection into the plurality of cylinders is feedback-controlled. See at least ¶¶; “The cylinders are preferably adapted individually”
fail to explicitly disclose:
the plurality of cylinders is feedback-controlled one after the other in a subsequent manner
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to balance cylinder torque. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to balance cylinder torque. See at least ¶¶ ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
determining the crankshaft position for each one of the plurality of cylinders during a combustion cycle, wherein the least one combustion parameter for each one of the plurality of cylinders is determined based on the pressure values and the crankshaft position. See at least : ¶¶0033, 0042
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above in view of as applied above.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the closed-loop combustion control is first applied to a cylinder having the greatest deviation of the combustion parameter from a target value.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to optimize engine performance and achieve a smooth running mode. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to optimize engine performance and achieve a smooth running mode. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above in view of as applied above.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
feedback-controlling the injection parameter based on a sensor value of the corresponding pressure sensor to obtain a target value for a combustion parameter of the cylinder. See at least ¶¶ “a first variable is predefined based on a signal of a combustion chamber pressure sensor or a structure-borne noise sensor. This first variable characterizes the combustion process in the combustion chamber of at least one cylinder of the engine.” “First manipulated variable Ai is preferably a cylinder-specific manipulated variable”; Figs 3-4.
disclose:
wherein, when performing the closed-loop combustion control strategy of each cylinder, a three level combustion control strategy for controlling at least one injection parameter of the cylinder is applied using: a base compensation map comprising individual compensation values for the injection parameter of each one of the cylinders, an adaptive map comprising correction values for the injection parameter of each one of the cylinders, the correction values being determined during operation of the engine, and
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing a three level combustion control strategy See at least (521; Fig 4), ¶¶ for controlling at least one injection parameter of the cylinder is applied using: a base compensation map See at least ¶¶; “End of line Injection Adjustment” 520; Fig 4, comprising individual compensation values See at least ¶¶; ΔQEIA for the injection parameter of each one of the cylinders, an adaptive map comprising correction values for the injection parameter of each one of the cylinders See at least ¶; “a map 530 (see FIG. 5) is generated (one map for each engine cylinder/injector)”, the correction values being determined during operation of the engine, See at least ¶¶; Fig 4; “Once the "Cylinder Balancing" routine has estimated an injector fuel quantity deviation ΔQCB at block 524, such value is stored in the map 530 at block 525. The enabling conditions for such a value to be stored in the map are that the engine is warmed up and operates in a steady state.”, See at least Fig 4 ¶¶0037- to improve fuel efficiency by balancing injection quantities for each cylinder. See at least ¶¶0009, .
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to improve fuel efficiency by balancing injection quantities for each cylinder. See at least ¶¶0009, .; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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 on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights