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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2025.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application EP24188601.9 filed on 07/15/2024.
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 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first pressure sensor” and the “second pressure sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 8 depends on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Fujita (DE102020126344).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches a fuel circuit, comprising:
a pumping device comprising a low-pressure stage and a high-pressure stage, the fuel
circuit being configured to supply, at high-pressure, fuel collected from a fuel tank to
injectors of an engine ([14]-20] disclosing the feed pump as a lower pressure pump and a further pressurizing pump interpreted as a high pressure pump that pressurizes the fuel coming from the feed pump to supply to the engine and a fuel filter),
a low-pressure circuit and a high-pressure circuit ([14]-[30], and figure 1 disclosing the feed pump circuit as a lower pressure pump and a further pressurizing pump circuit interpreted as a high pressure pump that pressurizes the fuel coming from the feed pump to supply to the engine and a fuel filter),
a fuel filter, which is arranged between an outlet of the low-pressure stage and an intake
of the high-pressure stage ([14]-[30] and figure 1 disclosing the fuel filter between the low pressure stage and the high pressure stage),
a first pressure sensor arranged upstream from the fuel filter ([14]-[30] disclosing the first pressure sensor 41 disclosing upstream of the filter), and
a second pressure sensor arranged between the fuel filter and the intake of the high-
pressure stage ([14]-[30] disclosing the second pressure sensor between the fuel filter and the high pressure stage).
Regarding claim 2, Fujita teaches the fuel circuit according to claim 1, wherein the fuel circuit further comprises:
a pressure relief valve, which is arranged on the high-pressure circuit, and
a control unit, which is configured to control the pumping device and the pressure relief
valve, and to evaluate a differential pressure of the filter when fuel flows through the filter ([14]-[30] disclosing the pressure relief valve including a pressure relief valve 62 included in the high pressure circuit and the pumping devices are controlled by the ECU, [33] wherein the ECU also determine the pressure differential between the sensors to determine the clogged filter).
Regarding claim 3, Fujita teaches an apparatus, comprising:
an engine with injectors, which are configured to inject fuel at high-pressure into cylinders of the engine ([14]-[33] disclosing the engine with injectors and the high pressurized fuel injected into the cylinders),
the fuel tank ([14]-[30] and figure 1 disclosing the fuel tank), and
the fuel circuit according to claim 1 ([14]-[33] disclosing the fuel circuit).
Regarding claim 4, Fujita teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein:
the apparatus is a vehicle or a power generator ([14]-[30] disclosing a vehicle).
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.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fujita (DE102020126344) in view of Rollinger (US20100108029).
Regarding claim 5, Fujita teaches a method to evaluate clogging of a fuel filter of a fuel circuit for an apparatus, the method comprising:
pumping fuel, with a pumping device of the fuel circuit, the pumping device comprising a
low-pressure stage and a high-pressure stage, the fuel circuit comprising a low-pressure circuit with the fuel filter and a high-pressure circuit, the fuel filter being arranged between an outlet of the low-pressure stage and an intake of the high-pressure stage ([14]-[33] disclosing pumping fuel via the low pressure pump being a feed pump and a high pressure pump being a supply pump and a fuel filter between the low pressure stage and high pressure stage, see fig. 1),
while pumping fuel, measuring a fuel pressure downstream of the fuel filter, with a
pressure sensor arranged between the fuel filter and the intake of the high-pressure stage ([14]-[33] disclosing measuring the fuel pressure via a high pressure sensor and a low pressure sensor).
Fujita does not explicitly disclose with a control unit, comparing the measured fuel pressure with expected values of the fuel pressure, the expected values being preferably stored in a memory of the control unit.
Rollinger teaches with a control unit, comparing the measured fuel pressure with expected values of the fuel pressure, the expected values being preferably stored in a memory of the control unit ([0010]-[0020] disclosing determining the clogged state when comparing the pressure downstream of the filler to a predetermined threshold indicating high or low pressure).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Rollinger of comparing the fuel pressure with expected values stored in order to determine if a filter reaches a high state or remains at a low pressure state indicative of a clogged filter thus avoiding damaging pumps by exerting unnecessary extra pressure.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fujita (DE102020126344) in view of Rollinger (US20100108029) and Chamarthi (US20110023833).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita as modified by Rollinger teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein:
Rollinger further teaches when comparing the measured fuel pressure with expected values of the fuel pressure, the control unit is configured to report a fault if the measured fuel pressure does not reach a predetermined threshold before a predetermined time, the predetermined threshold and the predetermined time being preferably stored in a memory of the control unit ([0010]-[0020] disclosing the fault as a clogged sensor if the fuel pressure remains in the low state for a predetermined time, i.e., unable to surpass the threshold within the predetermined time stored, at least [0022] disclosing starting of the engine period as the condition that the pressure is indicated at).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Rollinger of comparing the fuel pressure with expected values stored in order to determine if a filter reaches a high state or remains at a low pressure state indicative of a clogged filter thus avoiding damaging pumps by exerting unnecessary extra pressure, further including the time threshold increases the accuracy of the result.
Chamarthi teaches further teaches measuring fuel pressure downstream of the fuel filter occurs during a startup period of the apparatus, the measured fuel pressure being initially zero ([0047]-[0049] disclosing the measurement takes place at the startup period in order to take in consideration a cold start of the engine).
The combination of the teaching of Chamarthi to teach the fuel pressure measurement during the startup period is obvious yielding predicable results in order to take in consideration the cold temperature of the engine thus enabling the determination of the fault being a wax build up and removal of the wax buildup at the start of the vehicle.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fujita (DE102020126344) in view of Rollinger (US20100108029) and Dudar (US20190285020).
Regarding claim 7, Fujita as modified by Rollinger teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein:
Rollinger measuring fuel pressure downstream of the fuel filter occurs after a startup period of the apparatus, the fuel pressure varying according to operating conditions of the apparatus ([0010]-[0023] disclosing the measurements occur at different conditions such as accelerating and moving, i.e., after startup),
when comparing the measured fuel pressure with expected values of the fuel pressure, for any possible operating condition of the apparatus, a fault is reported if the measured fuel pressure does not stay within a range of expected values, ([0010]-[0020] disclosing the fault as a clogged sensor if the fuel pressure remains in the low state for a predetermined time, i.e., unable to surpass the threshold within the predetermined time stored, at least [0022] disclosing starting of the engine period as the condition that the pressure is indicated at).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Rollinger of comparing the fuel pressure with expected values stored in order to determine if a filter reaches a high state or remains at a low pressure state indicative of a clogged filter thus avoiding damaging pumps by exerting unnecessary extra pressure, further including the time threshold increases the accuracy of the result.
Fujita as modified by Rollinger does not teach the range of expected value being delimited, between a minimal value and a maximal value, the minimal value and the maximal value being each function of the operating conditions.
Dudar teaches the range of expected value being delimited, between a minimal value and a maximal value, the minimal value and the maximal value being each function of the operating conditions ([0059]-[0060] disclosing the range being between a minimum and a maximum to determine the failure based on the operating conditions).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Dudar of a range based on the operating conditions in order to avoid errors, since the threshold should be changeable based on conditions to improve the accuracy of the detection of the filter fault as taught by Dudar, Ref A shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above.
Claims 8, 10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fujita (DE102020126344) in view of Rollinger (US20100108029) and Kuroda (US20040261769) and Akita (US20060075992).
Regarding claim 8, Fujita as modified by Rollinger teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein:
Specifically Fujita teaches while pumping fuel, measuring a differential pressure of the fuel filter, with the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor ([10]-[23] disclosing the pressure difference between a first and second sensor while pumping fuel).
Fujita as modified by Rollinger does not teach while pumping fuel, opening a pressure relief valve of the high-pressure circuit, in order to increase fuel flow through the fuel filter above a pre-determined threshold. and while the pressure relief valve is open.
Kuroda teaches while pumping fuel, opening a pressure relief valve of the high-pressure circuit, in order to increase fuel flow through the fuel filter above a pre-determined threshold ([0009], [0019] disclosing the opening of the pressure relief valve on a high pressure circuit while pumping fuel to increase the amount of fuel, the amount of fuel has to pass through a filter, i.e., increase flow through a filter above a threshold, [0025] disclosing the predetermined amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Kuroda with the fuel system as taught by Fujita as modified by Rollinger in order to allow a sufficient amount of fuel to be delivered thus allowing to reduce a pressure and increasing fuel to avoid absorbing extra air as taught by Kuroda.
Akita teaches while the pressure relief valve is open ([0037] disclosing the monitoring of the pressure while the relief valve is open).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Akita with the pressure measurements as taught by Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda in order to determine when a sufficient pressure is reached while a valve is open to relief pressure thus improving the pressure amount in the fuel system as taught by Akita [0037].
Regarding claim 10, method according to claim 8, wherein:
while measuring differential pressure of the filter, 100% of the fuel pumped by the
pumping device flows back to the fuel tank ([0037] disclosing the monitoring of the pressure while the relief valve is open, wherein the valve is open to let in a predetermined quantity of fuel, i.e., the opening value can take any number based on fuel required but herein interpreted as full open to be 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Akita with the pressure measurements as taught by Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda in order to determine when a sufficient pressure is reached while a valve is open to relief pressure thus improving the pressure amount in the fuel system as taught by Akita [0037]. Akita shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the **range***. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to a range , since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda and Akita teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein:
Specifically Kuroda teaches while measuring differential pressure of the filter, the fuel flow through the filter is higher than ten times a fuel consumption of the engine when the engine is idling, preferably higher than twenty times, preferably higher than thirty times, preferably higher than forty times ([0037] disclosing the rate of flow is higher than consumption during idling wherein the relief valve is opened and fuel flows through it indicative of a higher rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kuroda in order to allow the flow of more fuel, to determine when a sufficient pressure is reached while a valve is open to relief pressure thus improving the pressure amount in the fuel system as taught by Akita [0037]. Akita shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the **range***. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to a range , since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda and Akita method according to claim 8, wherein:
Specifically, Kuroda teaches while measuring differential pressure of the filter, the fuel flow through the filter is at least four time higher than an average consumption of the engine, preferably five times higher, preferably eight times higher, preferably ten times higher, preferably twenty times higher ([0037] disclosing the rate of flow is higher than consumption during idling wherein the relief valve is opened and fuel flows through it indicative of a higher rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kuroda in order to allow the flow of more fuel, to determine when a sufficient pressure is reached while a valve is open to relief pressure thus improving the pressure amount in the fuel system as taught by Akita [0037]. Akita shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the **range***. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to a range , since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fujita (DE102020126344) in view of Rollinger (US20100108029) and Kuroda (US20040261769) and Akita (US20060075992) and by Paradise (US20130186098).
Regarding claim 9, Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda and Akita teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein:
while measuring differential pressure of the filter, at least 50% of the fuel pumped in the
high-pressure circuit flows through the pressure relief valve ([0037] disclosing the monitoring of the pressure while the relief valve is open, wherein the valve is open to let in a predetermined quantity of fuel, i.e., the opening value can take any number based on fuel required).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Akita with the pressure measurements as taught by Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda in order to determine when a sufficient pressure is reached while a valve is open to relief pressure thus improving the pressure amount in the fuel system as taught by Akita [0037]. Akita shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the **range***. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to a range , since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
While Akita does not explicitly disclose 50%. Paradise is cited as an alternative to teach the range level varies.
Paradise teaches 50 % ([0001]-[0002] disclosing the varying opening degree of the relief valve based on need).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of paradise in order to allow the fuel to bypass the engine and ensure that overall pressure in the fuel metering system is within specification.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fujita (DE102020126344) in view of Rollinger (US20100108029) and Kuroda (US20040261769) and Akita (US20060075992) and Leonard (US5218944).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda and Akita teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein: but does not teach while measuring differential pressure of the filter, the engine runs at a constant speed.
Leonard while measuring differential pressure of the filter, the engine runs at a constant speed (col. 6 first paragraph disclosing the measurement at the constant engine speed).
It would have been obvious to combined the condition of the engine speed as taught by Leonard to the measurement of differential pressure as taught by Fujita yielding predictable results in order to establish accurate values, Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda and Akita already teaches engine speed as condition for determining the pressure thus motivating the combination.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fujita (DE102020126344) in view of Rollinger (US20100108029) and Kuroda (US20040261769) and Akita (US20060075992) and Leonard (US5218944) and Yudagav (US20150068496).
Regarding claim 12, Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda and Akita and Leonard teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein:
Yudagav teaches the the apparatus being a vehicle, while measuring pressure , the vehicle is using engine brake and/or electromagnetic brake ([0019]-[0040] disclosing the measuring of the pressure to determine a threshold to open a relief valve based on engine braking could cause boiling of fuel).
Fujita already teaches the measurement of the differential pressure, thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Yudagav to measure the pressure during engine braking to relief the pressure to avoid burning of fuel during a non injection phase such as coasting and engine braking as taught by Yudagav.
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fujita (DE102020126344) in view of Rollinger (US20100108029) and Kuroda (US20040261769) and Akita (US20060075992) and Sen (US20210180532) and Smith (US20160068077)..
Regarding claim 15, Fujita as modified by Rollinger and Kuroda and Akita teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein:
Sen teaches differential pressure of the filter is measured several times during an operating cycle of the apparatus ([0027]-[0033] disclosing measuring the pressure differences several times until it meets the threshold),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teaching of Sen in order to determine the maximum capability when a maximum pressure drop is reached indicative of a fully clogged filter thus rendering the filter useless and in order to avoid straining the pumps.
Smith teaches each measured value is divided by an end of life value of the differential pressure, then averaged, in order to calculate a ratio representative of remaining lifetime of the filter ([0028] to at least [0060] disclosing a mathematical method of averaging multiple numbers over a maximum capacity of a filter to determine a remaining lifetime).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Smith of a mathematical formula to calculate the service life, Sen teaches determining service life equations. However, it is silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for the service life.
Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving the service life, as shown by Smith. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In addition, because both references are directed to determining service life. it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have substituted **one for the other*** to achieve predictable result of calculating a service life.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20160208726 discloses a clogged filter determination based on pressure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
