DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/29/2025. In the amendment, claims 1 and 18 have been amended, claim 5 is now canceled and claim 21 is newly added. Overall, claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending in this application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. DE 202015102092 U1 to Godard et. al. (Godard) in view of US Patent No. 11,767,778 B1 to Choi et. al. (Choi).
Examiner’s Note: Machine Translation of Pub No. DE 202015102092 will be used in the rejection below.
In Reference to Claim 1
Godard teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A mixing section for an exhaust system of an internal combustion engine, the mixing section being for intermixing exhaust gas and reagent, the mixing section comprising:
a mixing-section housing (25) enclosing a mixing chamber (57) and having a housing base (33);
said housing base (33) having at least one exhaust-gas inlet opening (39, 49) for admitting exhaust gas into said mixing chamber (57);
a reagent dispenser (17) for dispensing the reagent into said mixing chamber (57) in a main dispensing direction;
a reagent-receiving arrangement (69) for receiving the reagent dispensed into said mixing chamber (57);
said reagent-receiving arrangement (69) including a plurality of reagent receivers disposed one behind another in said main dispensing direction;
each one of said plurality of reagent receivers (69) defining a reagent-receiving area positioned to face toward said reagent dispenser (17); and,
wherein at least two of said reagent receivers (69) are directly adjacent to one another in said main dispensing direction (H), the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (69) positioned closer to said reagent dispenser being completely overlapped at right angles to said main dispensing direction (H) by the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (69) positioned further away from said reagent dispenser (17) (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
Godard does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (69) positioned closer to said reagent dispenser being completely overlapped at right angles to said main dispensing direction (H) by the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (69) positioned further away from said reagent dispenser (17). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver of said at least two of said reagent receivers positioned closer to said reagent dispenser being completely overlapped at right angles to said main dispensing direction by the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver of said at least two of said reagent receivers positioned further away from said reagent dispenser. For example, Choi teaches having the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (200a) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (200a, 200b) positioned closer to said reagent dispenser being completely overlapped at right angles to said main dispensing direction by the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (200a) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (200a, 200b) positioned further away from said reagent dispenser (300) and further Choi teaches that the reagent receivers (200) can have different size and numbers (see at least Choi Figs. 1-3, 5 and 7 and column 6 lines 1-33 and 45-65, columns 7, 8 and column 9 lines 36-39). The substitution of one known element (reagent receivers as shown in Choi) for another (reagent receivers as shown in Godard) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention since the substitution of the reagent receivers shown in Choi would have yielded predictable results, namely, in interrupting the injected reducing agent in Godard to atomize the urea solution injected from the urea solution injector.
In Reference to Claim 2
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein at least one of the following applies:
i) at least one of said reagent receivers (69) is formed in a plate-like manner and defines a substantially flat reagent-receiving area; and;
ii) at least one reagent receiver has a plurality of passage openings formed therein (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 3
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein said at least one exhaust-gas inlet opening (39, 49) defines a center axis and at least one of the following applies:
i) for at least one of said reagent receivers (69), the reagent-receiving area thereof is oriented substantially orthogonally to said main dispensing direction; and,
ii) for at least one of said reagent receivers, said reagent-receiving area is oriented substantially parallel to said center axis; and,
iii) at least two of said reagent-receiving areas (area near #69) are substantially parallel to one another (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 4
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein at least two of said reagent receivers (69) are directly mutually adjacent and the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) positioned closer to said reagent dispenser (17) is smaller than the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) positioned further away from said reagent dispenser (17) (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 6
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein a size of the reagent-receiving areas of the respective reagent receivers (69) increases in said main dispensing direction (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 7
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein said reagent dispenser has a dispensing location positioned in at least one direction at right angles to said main dispensing direction substantially centrally with respect to an outer peripheral contour of the reagent-receiving arrangement (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 8
The mixing section of claim 7 (see rejection to claim 7 above), wherein said outer peripheral contour of the reagent-receiving arrangement (69) corresponds substantially to an outer peripheral contour of the reagent receiver (69) having the largest reagent-receiving area (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 9
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein said at least one exhaust-gas inlet opening (39, 49) defines a longitudinal axis and is elongated in the direction of said longitudinal axis which is substantially parallel to said main dispensing direction (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 11
The mixing section of claim 10 (see rejection to claim 10 above), wherein said reagent receivers (69) are supported on said housing base (33) between said at least two exhaust-gas inlet openings (39, 49) (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 12
The mixing section of claim 10 (see rejection to claim 10 above), wherein at least one of the following applies:
i) each of said reagent receivers (69) extends at least partially across at least one of said exhaust-gas inlet openings (39, 49) at right angles to said main dispensing direction; and,
ii) all of said reagent receivers (69) extend at least partially across the same one of said exhaust-gas inlet openings (39, 49) at right angles to said main dispensing direction (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 13
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein at least one of said reagent receivers (69) extends at least partially across said at least one exhaust-gas inlet opening (39, 49) at right angles to said main dispensing direction (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 14
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein said mixing-section housing (25) has an exhaust-gas-deflecting wall situated opposite said housing base (33) and defines a concave inner deflecting surface facing toward said mixing chamber (57) (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 15
The mixing section of claim 14 (see rejection to claim 14 above), further comprising at least two of said exhaust-gas inlet openings (39, 49);
said concave inner deflecting surface exhibiting a vertex region with maximum spacing from said housing base (33); and,
a substantially vertical projection of the vertex region onto said housing base (33) being situated between said two exhaust-gas inlet openings (39, 49) (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 16
The mixing section of claim 15 (see rejection to claim 15 above), wherein said vertex region is elongated in the direction of the longitudinal axis of one of said at least one exhaust-gas inlet opening (39, 49) and/or in the direction of the main dispensing direction (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 17
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein said mixing-section housing (57) has an exhaust-gas outlet opening (63); and, a main inflow direction of the exhaust gas flowing through said at least one exhaust-gas inlet opening (39, 49) is substantially orthogonal to a main outflow direction of exhaust gas and/or reagent flowing through said exhaust-gas outlet opening (63) (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 18
Godard teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
An exhaust system for an internal combustion engine comprising:
a conduit (3) for conducting exhaust gas away from said internal combustion engine; and,
a mixing section (57) for intermixing exhaust gas and a reagent;
said mixing section (57) including:
a mixing-section housing (25) enclosing a mixing chamber (57) and having a housing base (33);
said housing base (33) having at least one exhaust-gas inlet opening (39, 49) for admitting exhaust gas into said mixing chamber (57);
a reagent dispenser (17) for dispensing the reagent into said mixing chamber (57) in a main dispensing direction;
a reagent-receiving arrangement (69) for receiving the reagent dispensed into said mixing chamber (57);
said reagent-receiving arrangement (69) including a plurality of reagent receivers (69) disposed one behind another in said main dispensing direction;
each one of said plurality of reagent receivers (69) defining a reagent-receiving area positioned to face toward said reagent dispenser (17) and
wherein at least two of said reagent receivers (69) are directly adjacent to one another in said main dispensing direction (H), the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (69) positioned closer to said reagent dispenser being completely overlapped at right angles to said main dispensing direction (H) by the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (69) positioned further away from said reagent dispenser (17) (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
Godard does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (69) positioned closer to said reagent dispenser being completely overlapped at right angles to said main dispensing direction (H) by the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (69) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (69) positioned further away from said reagent dispenser (17). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver of said at least two of said reagent receivers positioned closer to said reagent dispenser being completely overlapped at right angles to said main dispensing direction by the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver of said at least two of said reagent receivers positioned further away from said reagent dispenser. For example, Choi teaches having the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (200a) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (200a, 200b) positioned closer to said reagent dispenser being completely overlapped at right angles to said main dispensing direction by the reagent-receiving area of the reagent receiver (200a) of said at least two of said reagent receivers (200a, 200b) positioned further away from said reagent dispenser (300) and further Choi teaches that the reagent receivers (200) can have different size and numbers (see at least Choi Figs. 1-3, 5 and 7 and column 6 lines 1-33 and 45-65, columns 7, 8 and column 9 lines 36-39). The substitution of one known element (reagent receivers as shown in Choi) for another (reagent receivers as shown in Godard) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention since the substitution of the reagent receivers shown in Choi would have yielded predictable results, namely, in interrupting the injected reducing agent in Godard to atomize the urea solution injected from the urea solution injector.
In Reference to Claim 19
The exhaust system of claim 18 (see rejection to claim 18 above), further comprising at least one of the following:
i) a first exhaust-gas treatment arrangement (5) disposed upstream of said mixing section (57); and,
ii) a second exhaust-gas treatment arrangement (9) disposed downstream of said mixing section (57) (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 20
The exhaust system of claim 19 (see rejection to claim 19 above), wherein said first exhaust-gas treatment arrangement (5) includes an oxidation catalytic converter (5) and/or a particle filter; and,
said second exhaust-gas treatment arrangement (9) includes an SCR catalytic converter (9) (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
In Reference to Claim 21
Godard teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A mixing section for an exhaust system of an internal combustion engine, the mixing section being for intermixing exhaust gas and reagent, the mixing section comprising:
a mixing-section housing (25) enclosing a mixing chamber (57) and having a housing base (33);
said housing base (33) having at least one exhaust-gas inlet opening (39, 49) for admitting exhaust gas into said mixing chamber (57);
a reagent dispenser (17) for dispensing the reagent into said mixing chamber (57) in a main dispensing direction;
a reagent-receiving arrangement (69) for receiving the reagent dispensed into said mixing chamber (57);
said reagent-receiving arrangement (69) including a plurality of reagent receivers disposed one behind another in said main dispensing direction;
each one of said plurality of reagent receivers (69) defining a reagent-receiving area positioned to face toward said reagent dispenser (17); and,
wherein at least one reagent receiver (69) has a plurality of passage openings formed therein (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
Godard does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) wherein at least one reagent receiver (69) has a plurality of passage openings formed therein. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have least one reagent receiver has a plurality of passage openings formed therein. For example, Choi teaches least one reagent receiver (200) has a plurality of passage openings (210) formed therein. Choi further teaches that having such structure provides optimize the distribution of the urea solution injected to the first and second receivers (see at least Choi Figs. 1-6 and column 7 lines 61-67 and column 8 lines 1-6). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reagent receiver of Godard to have plurality of passage openings formed therein as taught by Choi in order to optimize the distribution of the urea solution injected to the first and second receivers.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godard in view of Choi and further in view of Pub No. DE 102015106876 A1 to Greber et. al. (Greber).
Examiner’s Note: Machine Translation of Pub No. DE 102015106876 will be used in the rejection below.
In Reference to Claim 10
Godard in view of Choi teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The mixing section of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), further comprising at least two of said exhaust-gas inlet openings (39, 49) formed in said housing base (33); said exhaust-gas inlet openings (39, 49) having respective longitudinal axes substantially parallel to said main dispensing direction and said exhaust-gas inlet openings (39, 49) being elongated in a direction of corresponding ones of said longitudinal axes; and, said longitudinal axes being substantially parallel to one another and overlapping one another (see at least Godard Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 21-22, 27, 34, 37-42, 70-73, 80-91).
Godard in view of Choi is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to said exhaust-gas inlet openings (39, 49) being elongated in a direction of corresponding ones of said longitudinal axes; and, said longitudinal axes being substantially parallel to one another and overlapping one another. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a housing base for a mixing device having exhaust-gas inlet openings being elongated in a direction of corresponding ones of said longitudinal axes; and, said longitudinal axes being substantially parallel to one another and overlapping one another. For example, Greber teaches a housing base (19) for a mixing device having exhaust-gas inlet openings (45) being elongated in a direction of corresponding ones of said longitudinal axes; and, said longitudinal axes being substantially parallel to one another and overlapping one another (see at least Greber Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 38-42). The substitution of one known element (housing base as shown in Godard in view of Choi) for another (housing base as shown in Godard) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the housing base (with having exhaust-gas inlet openings being elongated in a direction of corresponding ones of said longitudinal axes) shown in Godard in view of Choi would have yielded predictable results, namely, mixing the reductant with the exhaust gas in Godard to provide mixture of reductant and exhaust gas to the SCR in the downstream.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2010/0083643 A1 to Hayashi et. al. (Hayashi) teaches a reducing agent mixer with opening within.
Pub No. US 2020/0271035 A1 to Gattani et. al. (Gattani) teaches a reducing agent mixer with opening within.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 January 19, 2026