DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement filed by the Applicant listed below:
August 14, 2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language, but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
.
[0024] The “threshold” according to the present disclosure may be set according to at least one of an area where the vehicle has been lastly refueled, a time when the vehicle has been lastly refueled, or an outside air temperature. Here, the ease and difficulty of deposit accumulation may change according to one or both of a fuel property and the outside air temperature. The fuel property may change according to one or both of a refueling area and a refueling time. Therefore, by setting the threshold according to at least one of the area where the vehicle has been lastly refueled, the time when the vehicle has been lastly refueled, or the outside air temperature, it is possible to prevent accumulation of the deposit on the intake port and the back surface of the head portion of the intake valve while reducing an opportunity for a passenger to perceive an abnormal sound as much as possible.
[0035] The ECU 30 calculates an in-cylinder injection ratio (percentage) according to the calculated engine rotation speed Ne and engine load rate KL. The in-cylinder injection ratio described herein refers to a total fuel injection amount (a total amount of a fuel amount injected from the port injection valve 104 (port injection amount) and a fuel amount injected from the in-cylinder injection valve 105 (in-cylinder injection amount)) per cycle for each cylinder 101. For example, the ECU 30 calculates the in-cylinder injection ratio using a distribution map in which the engine rotation speed Ne and the engine load rate KL are used as parameters. The distribution map is stored in the ROM or the auxiliary storage device of the ECU 30 in advance. In the case, the ROM or the auxiliary storage device of the ECU 30 stores a plurality of distribution maps corresponding to a cooling water temperature, an outside air temperature, and the like.
[0048] The time expected to be required until the adhesive fuel changes to a deposit and the time during which the amount of deposit derived from the adhesive fuel is not expected to exceed the upper limit value may change according to one or both of a fuel property and an outside air temperature. The fuel property may change depending on one or both of an area and a time (season) at which the fuel is refueled. Therefore, in the present embodiment, the threshold is determined based on an area where fuel was lastly refueled for the vehicle 1 (hereinafter referred to as “refueling area”), a time when fuel was lastly refueled for the vehicle 1 (hereinafter referred to as “refueling time”), and a current outside air temperature. In the case, a map or a table capable of deriving the threshold using the refueling area, the refueling time, and the outside air temperature as parameters may be stored in the ROM or the auxiliary storage device of the ECU 30 in advance. Then, the ECU 30 may access the map or the table using the refueling area, the refueling time, and the current outside air temperature as parameters to derive a threshold suitable for the parameters.
[0049] The refueling area and the refueling time described above can be specified according to, for example, signals of the fuel remaining amount sensor 301 and the position sensor 307. That is, the ECU 30 can detect refueling based on an increase in a fuel remaining amount (the remaining amount of fuel stored in the fuel tank 20) detected by the fuel remaining amount sensor 301. Then, the ECU 30 can specify the refueling area and the refueling time by acquiring the position of the vehicle 1 and the date and time at the point in time through the position sensor 307 in accordance with detection of refueling of the fuel. The auxiliary storage device of the ECU 30 may store the refueling area and the refueling time specified in such a manner. The refueling area and the refueling time stored in the auxiliary storage device may be updated (overwritten) each time refueling is performed. A method of determining the refueling area and the refueling time is not limited to the method, and may be determined through other known methods. In addition, the current outside air temperature can be acquired through the outside air temperature sensor 308.
[0050] The threshold may be determined according to at least one of the refueling area, the refueling time, or the outside air temperature. In the case, the map or the table in which a correlation between at least one of the refueling area, the refueling time, or the outside air temperature and the threshold is defined may be stored in the ROM or the auxiliary storage device of the ECU 30 in advance.
[0051] In addition, the fuel property may be determined according to a correction amount used for feedback control of the fuel injection amount. For example, it can be estimated that the larger the correction amount to a fuel injection amount increase side is, the more likely the property of the fuel stored in the fuel tank 20 is to cause the deposit to accumulate. Therefore, a map or a table using the correction amount used for feedback control of the fuel injection amount and the outside air temperature as parameters may be stored in the ROM or the auxiliary storage device of the ECU 30 in advance. In the case, the ECU 30 may access the map or the table using the current correction amount and the current outside air temperature as parameters to derive a threshold suitable for the parameters.
[0056] In addition, in the present disclosure, the threshold is set according to a fuel property and an outside air temperature. Accordingly, it is possible to more reliably prevent one or both of the generation of a deposit on the intake port 102 or the back surface of the head portion of the intake valve 107 and an excessive increase in the accumulation amount while reducing the opportunity for the passenger to perceive an abnormal sound as much as possible
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which input(s) are provided and output(s) result as follows:
Inputs:
Outputs: .
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the Specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
Claim recites the limitation:
“wherein the threshold is set according to at least one of an area where a vehicle equipped with the internal combustion engine has been lastly refueled, a time when the vehicle has been lastly refueled
It appears that this limitation is a literal translation into English from a foreign document. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to read as follows:
“” which Examiner believes to be consistent with the instant specification.
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.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
An internal combustion engine () comprising:
a first injection valve () configured to inject a fuel into an intake port of the internal combustion engine (); See at least ¶¶ “”;
a second injection valve () configured to inject a fuel into a cylinder () of the internal combustion engine (); See at least ¶¶; and
a controller () configured to control an in-cylinder injection ratio that is a ratio of an in-cylinder injection amount to a total amount of a port injection amount and the in-cylinder injection amount, See at least ¶¶; “”; “”
the port injection amount being a fuel injection amount of the first injection valve and the in-cylinder injection amount being a fuel injection amount of the second injection valve, See at least ¶¶ “”;
wherein the controller () is configured to increase the in-cylinder injection ratio in response to an integrated value of time during which the internal combustion engine has been operated in a target operation state reaching or exceeding a threshold See at least Fig 6; ¶¶; “temporal variations of an injection ratio specify value, a port injection quantity of intake manifold injector 120, an in-cylinder injection quantity of in-cylinder injector 110, and a true injection ratio, when there is a stepwise change from DI ratio r=100% to DI ratio r=0%. A correction for the fuel deposited on the wall using intake manifold injector 110 is indicated by a solid line, while a correction for the fuel deposited on the wall using in-cylinder injector 120 is indicated by a dashed line. ”, the target operation state being an operation state in which the in-cylinder injection ratio is 0% in a low-load low-speed operation region that is predetermined. See at least ¶¶; See at least ¶¶; “FIGS. 7 and 8, there is a range of "DI RATIO r=0%" only in the map for the cold state in FIG. 8. This shows that fuel injection is carried out using only intake manifold injector 120 in a predetermined low load range (KL(3) or less) when the temperature of engine 10 is low. When engine 10 is cold and low in load and the intake air quantity is small, atomization of the fuel is unlikely to occur. In such a range, it is difficult to ensure favorable combustion with the fuel injection from in-cylinder injector 110. Further, particularly in the low-load and low-speed range, high output using in-cylinder injector 110 is unnecessary. Accordingly, fuel injection is carried out using only intake manifold injector 120, rather than in-cylinder injector 110, in the relevant range.”
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein increasing the in-cylinder injection ratio includes increasing the in-cylinder injection ratio in a stepwise manner. See at least ¶¶; (Fig 6) “”
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.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of Zeng et al. (), hereinafter “Zeng et al.”
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to,
in a case where a radiator fan is operated when the integrated value is less than the threshold and an operation state of the internal combustion engine is the target operation state, increase the in-cylinder injection ratio in response to an operation of the radiator fan.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Zeng et al. teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to mitigate noise vibration and harshness issues. See at least ¶¶ “”.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Zeng et al. to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of increasing the in-cylinder injection ratio in response to an operation of the radiator fan in a case where a radiator fan is operated when the integrated value is less than the threshold and an operation state of the internal combustion engine is the target operation state in to mitigate noise vibration and harshness issues. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “Fujii”.
Regarding Claim ,
fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to,
in a case where a vehicle equipped with the internal combustion engine travels when the integrated value is less than the threshold and an operation state of the internal combustion engine is the target operation state, increase the in-cylinder injection ratio in response to traveling of the vehicle.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to increase vehicle quietness. See at least ¶¶.“”
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to increase vehicle quietness. See at least ¶¶ 0019, 0036, 0054-0055; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
The “integrated value” according to the present disclosure may be, for example, an integrated value of time during which the internal combustion engine has been continuously operated in the target operation state.
In another example, the “integrated value” according to the present disclosure may be an integrated value of time during which the internal combustion engine has been intermittently operated in the target operation state. See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights