DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9,12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boo et al US 12,140,068 in view of Voss US 2020/0248653 and Pendray US 2010/0326399 and Baker et al US 2002/0070295.
In Re 1, Boo teaches
An internal combustion engine (ICE) system operating on a hydrogen-based fuel (title) ,comprising:
- an ICE having at least one cylinder at least partly defining a combustion chamber (fig 1 engine 170);
- main hydrogen-based fuel portion into the combustion chamber (abstract);
-a water condensate extraction system (128,124) configured to be in fluid communication with the exhaust system (176), and further configured to extract water condensate from the exhaust gases circulating in the exhaust conduit (col 5 ll 30-55).
Boo does not teach although Baker teaches a fuel injector arrangement (1 figs 4-12) configured to inject a pilot diesel fuel portion and a main hydrogen (paras 75-76,82-87). Baker further teaches pilot fuel auto ignites to promote combustion of main fuel para 82. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Baker’s dual fuel injector arrangement to Boo’s hydrogen engine to promote combustion of hydrogen.
Boo does not teach although Pendray teaches an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system having an EGR conduit configured to connect an exhaust manifold and an air intake manifold to permit recirculation of exhaust gas through the at least one cylinder during operation of the ICE (para 39). Pendray further teaches EGR provides a source for condensation para 39. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Pendray’s EGR system to Boo’s engine to provide a source for condensation and reduce high temperature undesirable NOx pollutant formation.
Boo does not teach however Voss teaches a diesel-water emulsion blender (abstract fig 1) and storage system (construed as mixer 12/102) configured to receive the extracted condensed water and further configured to create a diesel-water emulsion from the extracted condensed water and diesel (abstract). Voss further teaches emulsions reduce undesirable high combustion temperatures and knocking, para 3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Voss’s diesel water emulsion blender to Boo’s engine to reduce undesirable high combustion temperatures and knocking.
In Re 2, Boo as modified by Pendray, Pendray teaches the water condensate extraction system comprises a cooler (para 39) for cooling exhaust gases passing through the EGR system.
In Re 3-9,12-15, Boo as modified by Voss and Pendray and Baker further teaches:
3. The ICE system of claim 2, wherein the cooler is arranged in fluid communication with a low-temperature coolant circuit (construed as Pendray water supplies para 39).
4. The ICE system of claim 2, wherein the water condensate extraction system is configured to extract water from the cooled exhaust gases through condensation (Boo cols 5-6 “condense”) .
5. The ICE system of claim 1, wherein the water condensate extraction system comprises a water management system arranged and configured to collect the extracted water from the cooled exhaust gases (Boo item 160, col 7 “water management system”, title, abstract).
6. The ICE system of claim 5, wherein the water management system is configured to collect water through gravitation (sub tank 120 is shown with separators above tank and condensed liquid water below in tank, condensed water falling out of exhaust gas from to bottom by gravity, col 5).
7. The ICE system of claim 5, wherein the water management system is configured to transport water in a liquid fluid circuit to the diesel-water emulsion blender and storage system (Boo’s line 114 as modified with addition of Voss’s emulsifier 4, Boo line 114 connected to Voss 4).
8. The ICE system of claim 1, wherein the diesel-water emulsion blender and storage system is configured to supply the created diesel-water emulsion to the fuel injector arrangement system (Boo’s line 114 as modified with addition of Voss’s emulsifier 4, Boo line 114 connected to Voss 4).
9. The ICE system of claim 1, further comprising a diesel fuel storage system configured to store diesel (Voss 101), the diesel fuel storage system being configured to be in fluid communication with the fuel injector arrangement and the diesel-water emulsion blender and storage system (fig 1).
12. The ICE system of claim 1, wherein the ICE system is a high pressure direct injection ICE system (Baker para 6 direct injection is high pressure).
13. The ICE system of claim 1, wherein the fuel injector arrangement comprises a dual fuel injector configured to selectively inject the pilot diesel fuel portion and the main hydrogen gas fuel portion into the combustion chamber (Baker title).
14. The ICE system of claim 1, wherein the fuel injector arrangement is configured to adjust the injection timing (Baker para 80 timing) of the pilot diesel fuel portion and the main hydrogen-based fuel portion (Baker para 80 independent timing and quantity of pilot and main injection) based on any one of engine load and engine speed (inherent to engine control, further see at least Voss para 8).
15. A vehicle (Boo vehicle col 1) comprising an internal combustion engine system according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boo et al US 12,140,068 in view of Voss US 2020/0248653 and Pendray US 2010/0326399 and Baker et al US 2002/0070295 and Shimada et al US 5,245,953.
In RE 10 Boo does not teach however Shimada teaches further comprising a separate storage system (46 fig 1) for the created diesel-water emulsion, the separate storage system being configured to be in fluid communication with the fuel injector arrangement (32) and the diesel-water emulsion blender (45) and storage system, and wherein the created diesel-water emulsion is routed to the separate storage system (45 into 46) and supplied to the fuel injector arrangement (32) upon a demand for a pilot diesel fuel portion injection (diesel is provided upon demand). Shimada further teaches storing the emulsified fuel in tank 46, col 6 ll 1-6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to integrate Shimada’s separate storage system with Boo as modified by Voss, Pendray, and Baker in order to store extra or excess emulsified diesel water mixture for late injection.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boo et al US 12,140,068 in view of Voss US 2020/0248653 and Pendray US 2010/0326399 and Baker et al US 2002/0070295 and Brown et al US 2003/0084658.
In Re 11, Boo does not teach however Brown teaches the created diesel-water emulsion contains any one of an emulsifier and a lubricity additive (para 29). Brown further teaches reducing pollutants with additives, title abstract. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Brown’s additive to Boo’s fuel to reduce pollution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues pg 6 that Boo recovers water from its exhaust line and not a recirculation loop. However examiner finds said recirculation loop is an exhaust gas recirculation loop, known as EGR. Pendray teaches EGR.
Applicant argues pg 7 that Boo in view of Pendray does not teach a diesel water emulsion blender. However examiner finds Voss teaches diesel water emulsion blender.
Applicant argues pg 7 that motivation to combine with reasonable expectation of success is lacking. However, examiner finds prior art motivation cited and that a reasonable expectation of success is based on the cited motivations. Further, combining internal combustion engine components to meet emissions and improve combustion is reasonable to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of inventive filing.
Applicant cites multiple references to case law pgs 7-8, i.e. Pasteur; Personal Web. However, these cases are not cited in the MPEP and therefore requires no rebuttal as examiners limited case law training does not extend beyond MPEP citations.
Applicant argues pg 8 that office does not provide any analysis with respect to expectation of success. However as stated above and further cited prior art motivations are is well known and art recognized teachings, i.e. reduction of combustion temperature to reduce undesirable Nox pollutant formation.
Applicant argues pg 8 Intelligent case law. Examiner finds it’s reasonable to combine known internal combustion engine components and known engine design principles to meet emissions.
Applicant argues pg 8 Stepan. Examiner finds Stepan as cited in MPEP 2144.05 II is directed towards routine optimization. However, examiner presented articulated reasoning to combine.
Applicant argues pg 9 requirement of both motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success. Again, examiner finds combining known internal combustion engine components to reduce emissions and improve combustion is routine and reasonable.
Applicant argues pg 9 that PHOSITA has no reason to redirect that water to Voss’s diesel water emulsion as Boo has “use for every drop of water it recovers.” However, examiner finds Boo’s water storage is finite and in case of overfilling there is excess water.
Applicant further argues Boo has no diesel, however examiner finds Baker teaches diesel pilot injection in hydrogen engine to promote main combustion.
Applicant argues pg 10 that prior art does not teach claimed features. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., diesel water emulsion pilot) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Claim 1 merely requires diesel for pilot. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Voss does not teach water recovery. However, Boo and Pendrey both teach exhaust gas water recovery.
Applicant argues pg 10 that dependent claims patentable. However examiner finds applicants arguments depend on above refuted arguments and are therefore rendered moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights