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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noren, IV et al. (US 9,784,163).
With respect to claim 1, Noren et al. teaches a flow device for a mixer of an exhaust aftertreatment system (Fig.2), the flow device comprising a plate (Fig.2, Item 38), and a plurality of conduits (Fig.2, Items 86) coupled to the plate, each of the conduits comprising a first sidewall extending outward of the plate, a second sidewall extending outward of the plate and opposing the first sidewall, a main wall extending from the plate and between the first sidewall and the second sidewall, a conduit inlet coplanar with the plate and configured to receive exhaust (Figs.2, 5, 10 and 11), and the conduit outlet configured to release the exhaust received from the conduit inlet (Figs.2, 5, 10 and 11; Col.7, Line 30 – 49); but fails to particularly disclose a conduit outlet forming an angle between 35 degrees and 145 degrees inclusive with the plate.
The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the conduit outlet with any predetermined angular configuration because it would tune the plate to provide a desired gas-flow profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the Noren et al. invention. Furthermore, it has been held that where the 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.
With respect to claim 2, Noren et al. teach wherein the plate has a plate radius (Fig.10, Item 238); a first conduit radius is defined between a center of the plate and the first sidewall of one of the conduits (Fig.10, Item 286); a second conduit radius is defined between the center of the plate and the second sidewall of the one of the conduits (Fig.10, Item 286). The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a ratio of the first conduit radius to the plate radius is between 0.2 and 0.3, inclusive; and a ratio of the second conduit radius to the plate radius is between 0.8 and 0.9, inclusive because it would tune the plate to provide a desired gas-flow profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the Noren et al. invention. Furthermore, it has been held that where the 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.
With respect to claim 3, Noren et al. teach wherein the main wall comprises a curved portion (Fig.11, Item 284) extending from the plate and a flat portion extending from the curved portion, the flat portion being parallel to the plate.
With respect to claims 4 – 7, Noren et al. teach wherein a section of the flat portion (Fig.2, Item 84) overlaps a section of the plate; wherein the main wall comprises a first portion orthogonal to the plate; wherein the main wall further comprises a second portion orthogonal to the first portion; and wherein the main wall further comprises a second portion extending from the first portion at a non-zero angle relative to the plate (Figs.2, 10 and 11).
With respect to claim 8, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide wherein the conduit outlet of at least one of the conduits has a length and a height; and a ratio of the length to the height is between 1.5 and 5, inclusive, because it would tune the plate to provide a desired gas-flow profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the Noren et al. invention. Furthermore, it has been held that where the 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.
With respect to claim 9, Noren et al. teach wherein the conduits are contained within a sector of the plate, the sector having an angle span between 160 degrees and 225 degrees, inclusive (Fig.10, Items 286).
With respect to claim 10, Noren et al. teach wherein the plate comprises an aperture (Fig.10, Item 249) disposed away from the conduits (Fig.10, Items 286), the aperture defines a first open area on the plate; the conduit outlet defines a second open area (Fig.10). The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the second open area being equal to 35% to 150%, inclusive, of the first open area because it would tune the plate to provide a desired gas-flow profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the Noren et al. invention. Furthermore, it has been held that where the 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.
With respect to claim 11, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to dispose apertures between two adjacent conduits of the conduits in order to provide a desired gas-flow profile, as disclosed by Tucker et al. (US 11,085,346).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide wherein the conduit inlet defines a conduit inlet open area; the conduit outlet defines a conduit outlet open area; and a ratio of the conduit outlet open area to the conduit inlet open area is between 0.5 and 2, inclusive; and wherein the ratio of the conduit outlet open area to the conduit inlet open area is between 0.5 and 2.0, inclusive because it would tune the plate to provide a desired gas-flow profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the Noren et al. invention. Furthermore, it has been held that where the 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 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rudder et al. (EP 3 392 480) in view of Noren, IV et al. (US 9,784,163).
With respect to claims 14 and 19, De Rudder et al. teach a mixer for an exhaust aftertreatment system (Fig.1), the mixer comprising an inlet (Fig.1, Item 140) configured to receive exhaust from an exhaust conduit; an outlet (Fig.1, Item 150) configured to provide a mixture of the exhaust and a treatment fluid; a first flow device (Fig.1, Item 310) configured to receive the exhaust from the inlet, the first flow device comprising a plurality of main vanes (Fig.1), and a plurality of main vane apertures interspaced between the main vanes, each of the main vane apertures configured to receive the exhaust and to cooperate with at least one of the main vanes to facilitate swirling of the exhaust (Col.7, ¶ [0043] and [0044]); and a second flow device (Fig.1, Item 320), wherein the second flow device is disposed downstream of the first flow device and configured to receive the exhaust from the first flow device (Fig.1; Col.7, ¶ [0043] and [0044]).
However, De Rudder et al. fail to disclose the second flow device being the flow device described in claim 1.
Nevertheless, Noren et al. teach the limitations already discussed regarding claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Noren et al. flow device as the De Rudder et al. second flow device because it would provide the mixer with a plate that exhibit a desired gas-flow profile that ensure effective thorough mixing of exhaust gas and reducing agent and would facilitate dispersion of the reducing agent.
With respect to claims 15 and 20, De Rudder et al. teach an injector of a dosing module (Fig.1, Item 180) wherein the first flow device (Fig.1, Item 310) is disposed upstream of the injector, and the second flow device (Fig.1, Item 320) is disposed downstream of the injector.
With respect to claims 16 and 19, De Rudder et al. teach further comprising a third flow device (Fig.1, Item 170) disposed downstream of the second flow device (Fig.1, Item 320) and configured to receive the exhaust and the treatment fluid from the second flow device, the third flow device comprising a plurality of peripheral apertures and a main aperture (Fig.1, Item 170). The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a distance between a center of the third flow device and each of the peripheral apertures is 90% to 98%, inclusive, of a radius of the third flow device because it would tune the flow device to provide a desired gas-flow profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the De Rudder et al. and Noren et al. inventions. Furthermore, it has been held that where the 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.
With respect to claim 17, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide wherein an eccentricity of the main aperture is between 0 and 0.5, inclusive; the main aperture overlaps at least a portion of at least one conduit of the conduits; and a ratio of a hydraulic radius of the main aperture to a hydraulic radius of the third flow device is between 0.4 and 0.7, inclusive because it would tune the flow device to provide a desired gas-flow profile as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the De Rudder et al. and Noren et al. inventions. Furthermore, it has been held that where the 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.
With respect to claim 18, The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to provide wherein a second flow device further comprises a plurality of auxiliary apertures located between the peripheral apertures and the main aperture, the auxiliary apertures overlap a region of a first flow device that does not include the conduits, in order to provide a desired gas-flow profile, as disclosed by Tucker et al. (US 11,085,346).
Conclusion
The attached hereto PTO Form 892 lists prior art made of record that the Examiner considered it pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-3985. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
March 20, 2026