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
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebinsky (US 2015/0090222) in view of Naujoks et al (US 2018/0216583 hereinafter “Naujoks”).
In regards to claim 1:
Rebinsky teaches a system, comprising: a controller (56) of a combustion engine (16), wherein the controller (56) is configured to: determine a knock value of a fluid flow supplied to a combustion chamber of the combustion engine (via fuel quality sensor 54), wherein the fluid flow comprises at least one fuel, and the knock value varies at least due to variations in a fuel composition of the at least one fuel (wherein knock values will vary due to fuel compositions, Paragraph [0002] further recites “Gaseous fuel powered engines can operate using a range of different fuel mixtures. And some fuel mixtures have a greater heating value and/or lower methane number than other fuel mixtures. If an engine is supplied with fuel having an unexpectedly high methane number ("hot fuel"), damage to the engine can occur. If an engine is supplied with fuel having an unexpectedly low methane number, the engine can perform poorly or not operate at all. Accordingly, it is important to know the methane number of a fuel mixture supplied to a particular engine at a particular time.”).
Rebinsky does not teach at least one temperature adjuster to change a temperature of the fluid flow in response to variations in the knock value caused by the variations in the fuel composition of the at least one fuel.
Naujoks teaches a temperature adjuster (40) to change a temperature of a fluid flow that adjusts a knock value (octane / RON rating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the system of Rebinsky to have a temperature adjuster as taught by Naujoks in order to adjust a knock rating of a fuel (Paragraph [0038] recites “The gaseous fuel 15 with the short-chain hydrocarbon compounds C.sub.3H.sub.8 exiting the heat exchanger 40 or fuel evaporator 12 after the conversion has a higher knock resistance than the fuel 15 with the long-chain hydrocarbon compound C.sub.8H.sub.18 before entering the heat exchanger 40. In the example scenario, the octane or knock number is increased during the course of the conversion from RON 98 to a value of RON>=100.”, wherein adjusting the fuel through temperature manipulation of the fuel can increase the resistance of the fuel to knocking.
In regards to claim 2:
Rebinsky as modified teaches the at least one temperature adjuster coupled to at least one flow path of the fluid flow (the flow of fuel 15 flows through the temperature adjuster 40).
In regards to claim 3:
Rebinsky as modified teaches the combustion engine coupled to the at least one temperature adjuster, wherein the temperature adjuster (40 of Naujoks) is fluidly coupled to the engine with the fuel exiting the temperature adjuster is combusted by the engine.
In regards to claim 4:
Rebinsky as modified teaches the at least one temperature adjuster is coupled to a fuel flow path (fuel flow path 15 of Naujoks) of the at least one fuel, wherein the fuel flows through the temperature adjuster (40) of Naujoks.
In regards to claim 6:
Rebinsky teaches the at least one temperature adjuster is coupled to air flow path of air, wherein the air that is coupled to the temperature adjuster is exhaust air (Shown in Figure 1 of Naujoks).
In regards to claim 9:
Rebinsky the at least one temperature adjuster comprises at least one fluid circuit with a temperature adjusting fluid, the temperature adjusting fluid being exhaust gas (Shown in Figure 1 of Naujoks).
In regards to claim 12:
Rebinsky as modified teaches the at least one fuel comprises hydrogen and the knock value is based at least partially on a hydrogen content of the hydrogen in the fluid flow (Paragraph [0020] of Rebinsky recites “The fuel may include a compressed gaseous fuel such as, for example, a mixture of natural gas, propane, bio-gas, landfill gas, hydrogen, and/or another fuel.” And wherein the knock value is always related to the hydrogen content of a fuel, wherein a methane number is a knock resistance on a scale between methane and hydrogen of a gaseous fuel).
In regards to claim 14:
Rebinsky teaches a method, comprising: determining a knock value of a fluid flow supplied to a combustion chamber of a combustion engine via a controller, wherein the fluid flow comprises at least one fuel, and the knock value varies at least due to variations in a fuel composition of the at least one fuel.
Rebinsky does not teach controlling at least one temperature adjuster to change a temperature of the fluid flow in response to variations in the knock value caused by the variations in the fuel composition of the at least one fuel.
Naujoks teaches a temperature adjuster (40) to change a temperature of a fluid flow that adjusts a knock value (octane / RON rating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the system of Rebinsky to have a temperature adjuster as taught by Naujoks in order to adjust a knock rating of a fuel (Paragraph [0038] recites “The gaseous fuel 15 with the short-chain hydrocarbon compounds C.sub.3H.sub.8 exiting the heat exchanger 40 or fuel evaporator 12 after the conversion has a higher knock resistance than the fuel 15 with the long-chain hydrocarbon compound C.sub.8H.sub.18 before entering the heat exchanger 40. In the example scenario, the octane or knock number is increased during the course of the conversion from RON 98 to a value of RON>=100.”, wherein adjusting the fuel through temperature manipulation of the fuel can increase the resistance of the fuel to knocking.
In regards to claim 15:
Rebinsky as modified teaches the at least one temperature adjuster is coupled to a fuel flow path of the at least one fuel (the flow of fuel 15 flows through the temperature adjuster 40).
In regards to claim 17:
Rebinsky teaches the at least one fuel comprises hydrogen and the knock value is based at least partially on a hydrogen content of the hydrogen in the fluid flow (Paragraph [0020] of Rebinsky recites “The fuel may include a compressed gaseous fuel such as, for example, a mixture of natural gas, propane, bio-gas, landfill gas, hydrogen, and/or another fuel.” And wherein the knock value is always related to the hydrogen content of a fuel, wherein a methane number is a knock resistance on a scale between methane and hydrogen of a gaseous fuel).
In regards to claim 18:
Rebinsky teaches a system, comprising: a controller of a combustion engine, wherein the controller is configured to: determine a knock value of a fluid flow supplied to a combustion chamber of the combustion engine, wherein the fluid flow comprises at least one fuel, and the knock value varies at least due to variations in a fuel composition of the at least one fuel; and control at least one temperature adjuster to change a temperature of the fluid flow in response to variations in the knock value, wherein the at least one temperature adjuster is coupled to a fuel flow path of the at least one fuel and/or an air-fuel mixture flow path of an air-fuel mixture of the at least one fuel and air.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebinsky and Naujoks as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Turlapati et al (US 2018/0372013 hereinafter “Turlapati”).
In regards to claim 5:
Rebinsky does not teach the at least one temperature adjuster is coupled to an air-fuel mixture flow path downstream from a mixer and the mixer is configured to mix an air with at least a portion of the at least one fuel to obtain an air-fuel mixture.
Turlapati teaches a mixer (12) that mixes an air flow and fuel flow, producing an air-fuel mixture flow path downstream from the mixer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Rebinsky to have a mixer as taught by Turlapati in order to deliver fuel in an alternative way to deliver a desired air-fuel ratio based on a determined knock value (methane number) (Paragraph [0041] of Turlapati).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebinsky and Naujoks as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fimml et al (US 2023/0417201 hereinafter “Fimml”).
In regards to claim 7:
Rebinsky does not teach the at least one temperature adjuster is downstream from a compressor.
Conway teaches a compressor (8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the system of Rebinsky to have a compressor as taught by Fimml in order to compress air and provide forced induction the engine. Wherein the prior art of Naujoks teaches that exhaust gas is used in the temperature adjuster, and air will flow into the compressor, be used by the engine, exhausted by the engine, and into the temperature adjuster.
In regards to claim 8:
Rebinsky as modified teaches the compressor (8 of Fimmls) is downstream from a mixer (14) configured to mix air with at least a portion of the at least one fuel to obtain an air-fuel mixture upstream of the compressor.
Claims 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebinsky and Naujoks as applied to claim 1, 13, 14 and 18 respectively above, and further in view of Anderson et al (US 11,873,772 hereinafter “Anderson”).
In regards to claim 10:
Rebinsky does not teach the controller is configured to monitor a temperature of the fluid flow upstream from the at least one temperature adjuster, and control the temperature of the fluid flow based on a target knock value versus the knock value.
Anderson teaches a controller (18) that monitors a temperature of a fuel and controls the temperature of the fuel based on a target knock value versus a knock value (Col 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Rebinsky to have a controller as taught by Anderson to control the fluid flow temperature to arrive at a target knock value (Col 20 of Anderson recites “adjusting at least one gas temperature setpoint based on at least one of a measured methane number or an estimated methane number.”). Wherein the fuel will have a base knock value and it is known in the art that alterations in temperature of a fuel or air fuel mixture will impact the knock value (methane number), wherein as temperature goes up, the probability of knock increases until an autoignition temperature is reached, and adjusting the temperature of a fuel is taught to protect an engine (Col 20 of Anderson recites “the at least one gas temperature setpoint is based on an engine protection setpoint.”).
In regards to claim 11:
Rebinsky does not teach the controller is configured to: control the at least one temperature adjuster to operate to change the temperature of the fluid flow in response to the knock value not meeting a target knock value caused by the variations in the fuel composition of the at least one fuel; and control the at least one temperature adjuster to not operate in response to the knock value meeting the target knock value.
Anderson teaches a controller (18) that changes a temperature of a fluid flow in response to a knock value not meeting a target knock value (Col 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Rebinsky to have a controller as taught by Anderson to control the fluid flow temperature to arrive at a target knock value (Col 20 of Anderson recites “adjusting at least one gas temperature setpoint based on at least one of a measured methane number or an estimated methane number.”). Wherein the fuel will have a base knock value and it is known in the art that alterations in temperature of a fuel or air fuel mixture will impact the knock value (methane number), wherein as temperature goes up, the probability of knock increases until an autoignition temperature is reached, and adjusting the temperature of a fuel is taught to protect an engine (Col 20 of Anderson recites “the at least one gas temperature setpoint is based on an engine protection setpoint.”).
In regards to claim 13:
Rebinsky as modified teaches the at least one fuel comprises methane and the knock value is based at least partially on a methane content of the methane in the fluid flow (Paragraph [0020] of Rebinsky recites “The fuel may include a compressed gaseous fuel such as, for example, a mixture of natural gas, propane, bio-gas, landfill gas, hydrogen, and/or another fuel.” And wherein the knock value is always related to the methane content of a fuel, wherein a methane number is a knock resistance on a scale between methane and hydrogen of a gaseous fuel).
In regards to claim 16:
Rebinsky does not teach controlling the at least one temperature adjuster to operate to change the temperature of the fluid flow in response to the knock value not meeting a target knock value caused by the variations in the fuel composition of the at least one fuel; and control the at least one temperature adjuster to not operate in response to the knock value meeting the target knock value.
Anderson teaches a controller (18) that changes a temperature of a fluid flow in response to a knock value not meeting a target knock value (Col 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Rebinsky to have a controller as taught by Anderson to control the fluid flow temperature to arrive at a target knock value (Col 20 of Anderson recites “adjusting at least one gas temperature setpoint based on at least one of a measured methane number or an estimated methane number.”). Wherein the fuel will have a base knock value and it is known in the art that alterations in temperature of a fuel or air fuel mixture will impact the knock value (methane number), wherein as temperature goes up, the probability of knock increases until an autoignition temperature is reached, and adjusting the temperature of a fuel is taught to protect an engine (Col 20 of Anderson recites “the at least one gas temperature setpoint is based on an engine protection setpoint.”).
In regards to claim 19:
Rebinsky as modified does not teach the controller is configured to control the at least one temperature adjuster to change the temperature of the fluid flow to adjust the knock value toward a target knock value without other knock control measures.
Anderson teaches a controller (18) that changes a temperature of a fluid flow in response to a knock value not meeting a target knock value (Col 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Rebinsky to have a controller as taught by Anderson to control the fluid flow temperature to arrive at a target knock value (Col 20 of Anderson recites “adjusting at least one gas temperature setpoint based on at least one of a measured methane number or an estimated methane number.”). Wherein the fuel will have a base knock value and it is known in the art that alterations in temperature of a fuel or air fuel mixture will impact the knock value (methane number), wherein as temperature goes up, the probability of knock increases until an autoignition temperature is reached, and adjusting the temperature of a fuel is taught to protect an engine (Col 20 of Anderson recites “the at least one gas temperature setpoint is based on an engine protection setpoint.”). Furthermore the court had upheld the omission of a feature not desired is obvious (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965)) and in the instant case only relying on a single measure would save on cost due to no longer having additional sensors or programming code to implement functions related to additional knock control measures.
In regards to claim 20:
Rebinsky does not teach the controller is configured to control the at least one temperature adjuster to change the temperature of the fluid flow to adjust the knock value toward a target knock value without allowing any knock to occur in the combustion engine.
Anderson teaches a controller (18) that changes a temperature of a fluid flow in response to a knock value not meeting a target knock value (Col 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the system of Rebinsky to have a controller as taught by Anderson to control the fluid flow temperature to arrive at a target knock value (Col 20 of Anderson recites “adjusting at least one gas temperature setpoint based on at least one of a measured methane number or an estimated methane number.”). Wherein the fuel will have a base knock value and it is known in the art that alterations in temperature of a fuel or air fuel mixture will impact the knock value (methane number), wherein as temperature goes up, the probability of knock increases until an autoignition temperature is reached, and adjusting the temperature of a fuel is taught to protect an engine (Col 20 of Anderson recites “the at least one gas temperature setpoint is based on an engine protection setpoint.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights