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
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 08/04/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2025 and 03/26/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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 sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control apparatus” in claim 14. The generic placeholder “apparatus” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “obtain a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber; and control, according to a preset rule, a fuel injection system to inject fuel into the combustion chamber when an engine is in a compression stroke, the fuel in the combustion chamber being heated and spontaneously combusting, and an input parameter of the preset rule comprising the characterizing temperature” without reciting the structure of the apparatus capable of performing the recited function.
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. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
a general purpose computer, a dedicated computer, or a processor of another programmable data processing apparatus (0152 lines 1-3)
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 Objections
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 9 line 2 “of a before top dead center” should read --before top dead center--.
At claim 18 line 1 “comprises” should read --further comprises--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the crank angle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- a crank angle--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an intake air flow of the combustion chamber” in lines 4-5. It is unclear which characteristic(s) of the intake air flow are required by the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --an intake air flow rate of the combustion chamber--. Support for the interpretation is found at 0050 lines 1-2.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 1 because the claims do not recite any judicial exceptions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 8, 10, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ROTH (US 10,233,850).
Regarding claim 1, ROTH discloses a control method for an engine, comprising:
obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15);
and
controlling, according to a preset rule (implied/inherent), a fuel injection system to inject fuel into the combustion chamber (col. 8 lines 35-38) when an engine is in a compression stroke (col. 4 line 67 - col. 5 line 2), the fuel in the combustion chamber being heated and spontaneously combusting (i.a. col. 1 lines 13-25, col. 8 lines 30-32), and an input parameter of the preset rule comprising the characterizing temperature (combustion sensing means 24 may include a temperature sensor configured to sense the temperature in the combustion chamber [col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15] and fuel injection into each combustion chamber is tailored…as measured by the combustion sensing means 24 [col. 8 lines 35-38]).
Regarding claim 8, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 1.
ROTH further discloses wherein the input parameter of the preset rule further comprises a crank angle of the engine (inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention, col. 3 lines 2-6; c.f. Applicant’s 0074 line 1 - 0075 line 2).
Regarding claim 10, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 1.
ROTH further discloses wherein the input parameter of the preset rule further comprises a crank angle of the engine (inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention, col. 3 lines 2-6; c.f. Applicant’s 0074 line 1 - 0075 line 2), a camshaft phase of the engine, a rotation speed of the engine (col. 5 line 7), and a pressure value in the combustion chamber (col. 8 lines 35-38, col. 12 lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 13, ROTH discloses a computer-readable storage medium (col. 3 lines 10-16), storing computer instructions (col. 3 lines 10-16), the computer instructions, when executed by a processor, performing the control method for an engine according to claim 1 (i.a. col. 3 line 16-20).
Regarding claim 14, ROTH discloses an engine (12, Fig. 1), comprising an engine body (Fig. 1), a fuel injection system (i.a. fuel injector 30), a piston (66), and a control apparatus (20), a cylinder (64) being formed in the engine body (Fig. 1), the piston being slidably arranged in the cylinder (implied/inherent), a combustion chamber (28) being formed between the piston and an inner wall of the cylinder (Fig. 1), and the fuel injection system being connected with the combustion chamber and configured to inject fuel into the combustion chamber (Fig. 1);
the control apparatus being configured to:
obtain a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15); and
control, according to a preset rule (implied/inherent), a fuel injection system to inject fuel into the combustion chamber (col. 8 lines 35-38) when an engine is in a compression stroke (col. 4 line 67 - col. 5 line 2), the fuel in the combustion chamber being heated and spontaneously combusting (i.a. col. 1 lines 13-25), and an input parameter of the preset rule comprising the characterizing temperature (combustion sensing means 24 may include a temperature sensor configured to sense the temperature in the combustion chamber [col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15] and fuel injection into each combustion chamber is tailored…as measured by the combustion sensing means 24 [col. 8 lines 35-38]).
Regarding claim 15, ROTH discloses the engine according to claim 14.
ROTH further discloses wherein the compression ratio of the engine is greater than 15 (geometric compression ratio of 16.2, col. 15 line 53; if the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim, see MPEP 2131.03(I.)).
Regarding claim 20, ROTH discloses a vehicle (i.a. col. 3 line 36), comprising a vehicle body (implied/inherent) and the engine according to claim 14, the engine being arranged on the vehicle body (implied/inherent).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROTH (US 10,233,850) in view of GUISASOLA (US 12,460,589).
Regarding claim 2, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 1.
ROTH discloses the obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15) comprises: a temperature sensor configured to sense the temperature in the combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 14-15) to achieve precise control of the GDCI combustion process (col. 1 lines 29-30).
ROTH is silent regarding further details of the temperature sensor.
GUISASOLA teaches a temperature sensor configured to obtain a temperature at a defined position in an engine body of the engine (cylinder head, col. 8 lines 62-63) for controlling fuel supply characteristics (col. 8 lines 52-53 and 55) in dependence on the obtained temperature values (col. 8 lines 65-67), wherein a distance between the defined position and a combustion chamber ranging from 4 mm to 10 mm (0.3-10 mm, col. 8 lines 20-24).
Absent further guidance from ROTH on the temperature sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a temperature sensor placed in a cylinder head and spaced from the combustion chamber in the claimed range as taught by GUISASOLA to achieve precise control of the GDCI combustion process.
ROTH as modified teaches wherein the obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber comprises: obtaining a temperature at a defined position in an engine body of the engine, a distance between the defined position and the combustion chamber ranging from 4 mm to 10 mm.
Regarding claim 16, ROTH discloses the engine according to claim 14.
ROTH discloses the obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15) comprises: a temperature sensor configured to sense the temperature in the combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 14-15).
ROTH is silent regarding further details of the temperature sensor.
GUISASOLA teaches a temperature sensor configured to obtain a temperature at a defined position in an engine body of the engine (cylinder head, col. 8 lines 62-63) for controlling fuel supply characteristics (col. 8 lines 52-53 and 55) in dependence on the obtained temperature values (col. 8 lines 65-67), wherein a distance between the defined position and a combustion chamber ranging from 4 mm to 10 mm (0.3-10 mm, col. 8 lines 20-24).
Absent further guidance from ROTH on the temperature sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a temperature sensor placed in a cylinder head and spaced from the combustion chamber in the claimed range as taught by GUISASOLA to provide a functioning GDCI system.
ROTH as modified teaches wherein the obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber comprises: obtaining a temperature at a defined position in the engine body, a distance between the defined position and the combustion chamber ranging from 4 mm to 10 mm.
The limitation “the temperature of the defined position is greater than 150°C” is considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, the defined position of the prior art is capable of having a temperature greater than 150°C.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROTH (US 10,233,850) in view of USUI (JP 2012-072668, provided by Applicant on 03/26/2026).
Regarding claim 3, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 1.
ROTH discloses the obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15) comprises: a temperature sensor configured to sense the temperature in the combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 14-15) to achieve precise control of the GDCI combustion process (col. 1 lines 29-30).
ROTH is silent regarding further details of the temperature sensor.
USUI teaches a temperature sensor (81) configured to obtain a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature of an inner wall of the combustion chamber (p. 14 ll. 2-3).
Absent further guidance from ROTH on the temperature sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a temperature sensor as taught by USUI to achieve precise control of the GDCI combustion process.
ROTH as modified teaches wherein the obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber comprises: obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature of an inner wall of the combustion chamber.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROTH (US 10,233,850) in view of TAKAHASHI (US 9,695,770).
Regarding claim 4, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 1.
ROTH discloses obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15);
ROTH further discloses using spark plug ignition to initially start a cold engine before switching to compression ignition (col. 14 lines 46-50).
ROTH is silent regarding a preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine.
TAKAHASHI teaches a preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine, wherein when a temperature of the engine is below a predetermined temperature compression-ignition combustion is not stable and is not performed and SI mode is performed instead; wherein when the temperature of the engine is above a predetermined temperature the SI mode is switched to CI mode (col. 17 lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of ROTH to select between SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine based on the preset rule taught by TAKAHASHI to robustly start a cold engine.
TAKAHASHI is silent regarding the location where the temperature of the engine is measured and the value of the predetermined threshold.
However, TAKAHASHI teaches the temperature of an engine is a result-effective variable effecting the stability of CI mode (col. 17 lines 56-60).
It would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine an effective predetermined temperature for the preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine taught by TAKAHASHI using the temperature of the engine obtained by ROTH to robustly start a cold engine, and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
ROTH as modified teaches wherein the preset rule comprises that the temperature in the combustion chamber is greater than 300°C.
Regarding claim 5, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 1.
ROTH discloses obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15);
ROTH further discloses using spark plug ignition to initially start a cold engine before switching to compression ignition (col. 14 lines 46-50).
ROTH is silent regarding a preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine.
TAKAHASHI teaches a preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine, wherein when a temperature of the engine is below a predetermined temperature compression-ignition combustion is not stable and is not performed and SI mode is performed instead; wherein when the temperature of the engine is above a predetermined temperature the SI mode is switched to CI mode (col. 17 lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of ROTH to select between SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine based on the preset rule taught by TAKAHASHI to robustly start a cold engine.
TAKAHASHI is silent regarding the location where the temperature of the engine is measured and the value of the predetermined threshold.
However, TAKAHASHI teaches the temperature of an engine is a result-effective variable effecting the stability of CI mode (col. 17 lines 56-60).
It would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine an effective predetermined temperature for the preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine taught by TAKAHASHI using the temperature of the engine obtained by ROTH to robustly start a cold engine, and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
ROTH as modified teaches the preset rule comprises that the temperature in the combustion chamber is greater than 400°C.
Regarding claim 6, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 1.
ROTH discloses obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15);
ROTH further discloses using spark plug ignition to initially start a cold engine before switching to compression ignition (col. 14 lines 46-50).
ROTH is silent regarding a preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine.
TAKAHASHI teaches a preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine, wherein when a temperature of the engine is below a predetermined temperature compression-ignition combustion is not stable and is not performed and SI mode is performed instead; wherein when the temperature of the engine is above a predetermined temperature the SI mode is switched to CI mode (col. 17 lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of ROTH to select between SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine based on the preset rule taught by TAKAHASHI to robustly start a cold engine.
TAKAHASHI is silent regarding the location where the temperature of the engine is measured and the value of the predetermined threshold.
However, TAKAHASHI teaches the temperature of an engine is a result-effective variable effecting the stability of CI mode (col. 17 lines 56-60).
It would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine an effective predetermined temperature for the preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine taught by TAKAHASHI using the temperature of the engine obtained by ROTH to robustly start a cold engine, and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
ROTH as modified teaches the preset rule comprises that the temperature in the combustion chamber is greater than a spontaneous combustion temperature of the fuel in the combustion chamber in a current state.
Regarding claim 7, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 1.
ROTH discloses obtaining a characterizing temperature characterizing a temperature in a combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15);
ROTH further discloses using spark plug ignition to initially start a cold engine before switching to compression ignition (col. 14 lines 46-50).
ROTH is silent regarding a preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine.
TAKAHASHI teaches a preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine, wherein when a temperature of the engine is below a predetermined temperature compression-ignition combustion is not stable and is not performed and SI mode is performed instead; wherein when the temperature of the engine is above a predetermined temperature the SI mode is switched to CI mode (col. 17 lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of ROTH to select between SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine based on the preset rule taught by TAKAHASHI to robustly start a cold engine.
TAKAHASHI is silent regarding the location where the temperature of the engine is measured and the value of the predetermined threshold.
However, TAKAHASHI teaches the temperature of an engine is a result-effective variable effecting the stability of CI mode (col. 17 lines 56-60).
It would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine an effective predetermined temperature for the preset rule for selecting SI mode and CI mode to start a cold engine taught by TAKAHASHI using the temperature of the engine obtained by ROTH to robustly start a cold engine, and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
ROTH as modified teaches the preset rule comprises that the temperature in the combustion chamber characterized by the characterizing temperature is greater than 1.2 times the spontaneous combustion temperature of the fuel in the combustion chamber.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROTH (US 10,233,850).
Regarding claim 9, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 8.
ROTH further discloses fuel may be injected late on the compression stroke and generally in the range -10° to 100° bTDCc under most operating conditions, but other conditions may require injection timing outside this range (col. 5 lines 11-16).
ROTH is not relied upon to anticipate the claimed range because it is unclear if ROTH discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity (see MPEP 2131.03(II.)).
Nonetheless, ROTH teaches injection timing is a result-effective variable (the quantity and timing of each injection is important and must be optimized for best results, col. 5 lines 10-11).
It would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed range based on the disclosure of ROTH, and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated optimize the injection crank angles to optimize for best results.
ROTH as modified teaches wherein the preset rule comprises that the crank angle of the engine ranges from 30° to 130° of a before top dead center of the compression stroke.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROTH (US 10,233,850) in view of IIYAMA (US 6,658,840).
Regarding claim 11, ROTH discloses the control method for an engine according to claim 1.
ROTH discloses the characterizing temperature is a temperature in the combustion chamber (col. 12 lines 14-15).
ROTH further discloses during an extreme cold start the combustion chamber is heated by spark ignition and that after just a few cycles robust compression ignition may be feasible (col. 14 lines 46-51).
ROTH is silent regarding an algorithm for selecting spark ignition and compression ignition to start a cold engine.
IIYAMA teaches a combustion chamber is heated (i.e., operated in SI mode, col. 3 lines 58-59; heated by way of heat generated by burning fuel in SI mode) when a characterizing temperature is less than a set temperature (Te1)(col. 3 lines 55-56); and
the heating of the combustion chamber is stopped (engine operated in self-ignition mode, col. 3 lines 53-54; c.f. Applicant’s 0081 lines 1-end) when the characterizing temperature is greater than or equal to the set temperature (col. 3 lines 52-53),
wherein when the characterizing temperature is greater than or equal to the set temperature, the temperature in the combustion chamber reaches the spontaneous combustion temperature of the fuel during the compression stroke (col. 3 lines 48-54).
Absent guidance from ROTH on an algorithm to start a cold engine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of ROTH to compare the characterizing temperature to a set temperature as taught by IIYAMA to start a cold engine.
Regarding claim 12, ROTH as modified teaches the control method for an engine according to claim 11.
ROTH further discloses wherein the heating the combustion chamber comprises: igniting the fuel through a spark plug to heat the combustion chamber through heat of the fuel (col. 14 lines 48-50); or heating the combustion chamber through an electric heating apparatus (glow plug, col. 14 lines 50-51).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROTH (US 10,233,850) in view of GUISASOLA (US 12,460,589) and KANEMARU (JP H06-81927).
Regarding claim 17, ROTH as modified teaches the engine according to claim 16.
ROTH further discloses a temperature sensor configured to obtain the characterizing temperature, the temperature sensor being arranged on the engine body (implied/inherent, col. 12 lines 12 and 14-15).
ROTH is not relied upon to teach the heat preservation apparatus as claimed.
KANEMARU teaches a heat preservation apparatus, the heat preservation apparatus being arranged on the engine body, and the heat preservation apparatus being configured to perform heat preservation on the combustion chamber (i.a. p. 2 ll. 1-2), wherein the heat preservation apparatus comprises:
a heat preservation structure (i.e., insulating layer, p. 2 l. 19), a thermal insulation chamber (i.e., cooling passage, p. 3 l. 1) being formed in the heat preservation structure (inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention, c.f. Applicant’s 0119 lines 3-4), the heat preservation structure being arranged on an outer side of the cylinder and around the cylinder (implied, [insulating layer] applied to the cooling passage of the cylinder block, p. 3 ll. 10-12; one of ordinary skill would recognize cylinder block cooling passages to be arranged on the outer side of the cylinders and wrap around the cylinders) to prevent overcooling of the combustion chamber (p. 2 ll. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insulate the cooling passages of the cylinder block of ROTH as taught by KANEMARU to prevent overcooling of the combustion chamber.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROTH (US 10,233,850) in view of GUISASOLA (US 12,460,589), KANEMARU (JP H06-81927), and HARADA (US 9,599,058).
Regarding claim 18, ROTH as modified teaches the engine according to claim 17.
ROTH is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
HARADA teaches a heat preservation apparatus comprises a thermal insulation coating (62, col. 10 line 37), the thermal insulation coating being arranged on an end of the piston (15, Fig. 1) to reduce a cooling loss (col. 9 line 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the thermal insulation coating taught by HARADA on the piston of ROTH to reduce a cooling loss.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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:
Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the combination of a thermal insulation coating arranged between a cylinder and a cylinder liner or on an inner wall of the cylinder liner and an electric heating unit arranged between the inner wall of the cylinder and the outer wall of the cylinder liner as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ADACHI (US 12,674,433) is not prior art but discloses electrical heaters (15) arranged on the outer surface of cylinder liners (10) but does not disclose a thermal insulation coating.
CHEN (CN 117,128,118) is not prior art but discloses (Fig. 6) heat insulation coating (15) and electrical heaters (4) arranged between the inner wall of a cylinder (23) and the outer wall of a cylinder liner (2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights