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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are 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 13 recites the limitation "the connecting portion” and “the second housing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The connecting portion and the second housing were presented in claim 12. The Examiner recommends depending claim 13 on claim 12 for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 is rejected due to its’ dependency on claim 13.
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 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ANEJA (U.S. Patent 8,230,678 B2).
Regarding claim 1, ANEJA discloses: an exhaust aftertreatment system (see Figures 5-8 and Abstract) for a vehicle (see Figures 9-11 that shows a vehicle (i.e. a truck)) comprising first and second longitudinal frame rails (70, 72; 770, 772) (see Figures 9-11, 20-22, 26, and 29), the exhaust aftertreatment system comprising:
a first housing (22, 26, 80, 86) comprising:
a first inlet (14) configured to be fluidly coupled to a supply of an exhaust gas (see Figure 5, Column 5, line 59 – Column 6, line 2) ;
a plurality of diesel oxidation catalysts (22A, 26A) fluidly coupled to the first inlet (see Figures 1 and 6, Column 6, lines 28-51);
a plurality of diesel particulate filters (22B, 26B) fluidly coupled to the plurality of diesel oxidation catalysts (see Figures 5 and 6, Column 6, lines 28-67); and
a mixing chamber (34) fluidly coupled to the plurality of diesel particulate filters (see Figures 5 and 6, Column 7, lines 1-12); and
a second housing (61, 46, 50, 59) comprising:
an inner channel (the inner channel is the channel that has flows (42 and 44) going into it) fluidly coupled to the mixing chamber of the first housing (see Figure 7);
a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (46, 50) fluidly coupled to the inner channel (see Figures 7 and 8, Column 7, lines 33-56); and
an outlet (60) fluidly coupled to the selective catalytic reduction catalyst (see Figure 8) and configured to permit the exhaust gas to exit the system (see Figure 8, Column 10, line 43 – Column 11, line 8),
wherein the first housing is fluidly coupled to the second housing by a connecting portion (see Figures 5-8, where the connecting portion is (59), since the chamber mixer (34) is fluidly couples to the second housing that feeds into the selective catalytic reduction catalysts (46,50)) .
Regarding claim 2, ANEJA discloses: the first housing has a first housing width and the second housing has a second housing width (see Figures 6-8 that shows the widths of the first and second housings), wherein at least a portion of the second housing width does not overlap with the first housing width (see Marked up Figures 6 and 7 of ANEJA), and wherein one of the first and second longitudinal frame rails is positioned adjacent the first housing and at least partially above the portion of the second housing width that does not overlap with the first housing width (see Figures 9, 16-18, 20, 25, and 26).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, ANEJA discloses: the first housing, the second housing, and the connecting portion comprise a one-box assembly (see Figures 5-8), the one-box assembly having a one-box assembly length and a one-box assembly width (see Figures 5-8), wherein the plurality of diesel oxidation catalysts, the plurality of diesel particulate filters and the mixing chamber extend in a lengthwise direction along the one-box assembly length (see Figures 6-8), and wherein the selective catalytic reduction catalyst extends in a widthwise direction along the one-box assembly width (see Figures 7-8, the Examiner would like to note that the claim is interpreted broadly, where the selective catalytic reduction catalyst extends in a widthwise direction, since the devices are not one-dimensional. The Examiner recommends adding the flow direction to the claim limitation in order to clarify that the flow occurs in the widthwise direction).
Regarding claim 4, ANEJA discloses: an outer channel (90) (see Figure 7) fluidly coupling the mixing chamber (34) to the inner channel (the inner channel is the channel that has (46, 50) in it)), wherein the outer channel is formed in part by the connecting portion and the second housing (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, ANEJA discloses: the outer channel and the inner channel share a channel wall (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 7, ANEJA discloses: one or more flow distributors (see Figure 7, where the channels (42, 44) are utilized as flow distributors by allowing flow to go down the specific channels) upstream of the selective catalytic reduction catalyst (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 9, ANEJA discloses: the selective catalytic reduction catalyst at least partially overlaps with just one of at least one of the plurality of diesel oxidation catalysts or the plurality of diesel particulate filters (see Figures 6-8).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANEJA in view of GOFFE (U.S. Patent 10,058,819 B2).
Regarding claim 6, ANEJA discloses: the selective catalytic reduction catalyst comprising a plurality of selective catalytic reduction converters (see Figure 7 that shows (46, 50)).
ANEJA fails to disclose at least one ammonia slip catalyst system.
Regarding claim 6, GOFFE teaches: at least one ammonia slip catalyst system (218) (see Figure 4, Column 10, lines 40-54).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have at least one ammonia slip catalyst system in the exhaust aftertreatment system of ANEJA, in order to fully facilitate hydrolysis of the mixed DEF and diesel exhaust (see Column 10, lines 40-54 of GOFFE).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANEJA.
Regarding claim 10, ANEJA discloses: a selective catalytic reduction catalyst inlet (the inlet to the selective catalytic reduction catalyst is at (42, 44), see Figure 7);
a selective catalytic reduction catalyst outlet (the outlet is located into (61) (see Figure 8); and
an outer channel (90) fluidly coupling the mixing chamber to the inner channel (see Figure 7).
ANEJA fails to disclose the flow path cross-sections of each of the mixing chamber, the outer channel, the inner channel, the selective catalytic reduction catalyst inlet, and the selective catalytic reduction catalyst outlet are substantially equal. ANEJA shows the flow path cross-sections in Figures 6-8), however, the flow path cross-sections of each of the mixing chamber, the outer channel, the inner channel, the selective catalytic reduction catalyst inlet, and the selective catalytic reduction catalyst outlet are not disclosed to be substantially equal.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the flow path cross-sections of each of the mixing chamber, the outer channel, the inner channel, the selective catalytic reduction catalyst inlet, and the selective catalytic reduction catalyst outlet are substantially equal, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose the criticality of this feature, and therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have the flow path cross-sections of each of the mixing chamber, the outer channel, the inner channel, the selective catalytic reduction catalyst inlet, and the selective catalytic reduction catalyst outlet are substantially equal, in order to avoid sudden expansion or contractions that result in pressure losses and potential noise issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Claims 11, 12, and 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SERBAN (U.S. Patent 12,1045,513 B2) discloses a compact exhaust gas treatment system with diesel oxidation catalyst (20), a filter (DPF) (19) (see Figure 6), a mixer (14), a selective catalytic reduction (21), and an ammonia slip catalyst (22) (see Figure 7).
GOSS (U.S. Patent 9,021,794 B2) discloses an exhaust gas treatment system with diesel oxidation catalyst (210), a filter (DPF) (220) (see Figure 1), a mixer (234), a selective catalytic reduction (235) (see Figure 2).
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights