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 .
This action is in response to the application filed 06/04/2024 and the IDS filed 06/04/2024.
Claims 1-28 are pending and being examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 10-16, 18-22, and 24-28 are 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.
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, 8-9, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zapf et al. (US 2019/0249582 A1) in view of Lorenz et al. (US 2020/0347766 A1).
Considering claims 1 and 17, Zapf teaches a controller (170 of Fig. 1) for use in an aftertreatment system and the method of use of the controller/aftertreatment system that comprises a doser (132 of Fig. 1) configured to dose reductant into a decomposition chamber (152 of Fig. 1) and a pump (224) configured to supply the reductant to the doser, the controller configured to be operatively coupled to the doser and the pump (Zapf, abstract, Fig. 1-3, [0006]-[0007], [0025], [0034]-[0036]).
Zapf teaches the controller is programmed to cause the pump and the doser to operate in an idle mode in which the pump supplies the reductant from a reductant tank to the doser at steady state, cause the pump and the doser to operate in a dosing mode in which the pump supplies the reductant to the doser, and the doser doses the reductant into the decomposition chamber at steady state (Zapf, [0039]-[0041]). Zapf teaches while the pump and the doser operate in the dosing mode, determine a second speed of the pump required to achieve the predetermined target pressure and generate a command to configure the pump and the doser, based on the first speed and the second speed (Zapf, [0041]-[0043]).
Zapf does not explicitly teach the doser does not dose the reductant and the reductant supplied to the doser by the pump is recirculated to the reductant tank during an idle mode.
However, Lorenz teaches a bypass valve may allow the reductant to flow back to the reductant storage tank, the bypass valve is configured to redirect the reductant flow away from the pump outlet and towards the reductant storage tank to provide over pressure protection or assist in priming the pump (Lorenz, abstract, [0065], [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the doser not to dose the reductant and to recirculate the reductant supplied to the doser by the pump to the reductant tank during an idle mode. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to provide pressure protection or assist in priming the pump with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claims 8-9 and 23, Zapf teaches a controller (170 of Fig. 1) for use in an aftertreatment system and the method of use of the controller/aftertreatment system that comprises a doser (132 of Fig. 1) configured to dose reductant into a decomposition chamber (152 of Fig. 1) and a pump (224) configured to supply the reductant to the doser, the controller configured to be operatively coupled to the doser and the pump (Zapf, abstract, Fig. 1-3, [0006]-[0007], [0025], [0034]-[0036]).
Zapf teaches the controller is programmed to cause the pump and the doser to operate in an idle mode in which the pump supplies the reductant from a reductant tank to the doser at steady state, cause the pump and the doser to operate in a dosing mode in which the pump supplies the reductant to the doser, and the doser doses the reductant into the decomposition chamber at steady state (Zapf, [0039]-[0041]). Zapf teaches while the pump and the doser operate in the dosing mode, determine a second speed of the pump required to achieve the predetermined target pressure and generate a command to configure the pump and the doser, based on the first speed and the second speed (Zapf, [0041]-[0043]).
Zapf does not explicitly teach a second doser configured to dose the reductant into a second decomposition chamber and the first and second doser do not dose the reductant and the reductant supplied to the first and second doser by the pump is recirculated to the reductant tank during an idle mode.
However, Lorenz teaches a second doser configured to the reductant into a second decomposition chamber and a pump configured to supply the reductant to the first doser, the first doser coupled between the pump and the second doser, a bypass valve may allow the reductant to flow back to the reductant storage tank, the bypass valve is configured to redirect the reductant flow from the first and second doser away from the pump outlet and towards the reductant storage tank to provide over pressure protection or assist in priming the pump; the controller is programmed to cause the pump, the first doser and the second doser to operate in a first dosing mode in which the pump supplies the reductant to the first doser, the first doser doses the reductant into the first decomposition chamber at steady state, and the second doser does not dose the reductant; cause the pump, the first doser and the second doser to operate in a second dosing mode in which the pump supplies the reductant to the first doser, the second doser doses the reductant into the second decomposition chamber at steady state, and the first doser does not dose the reductant (Lorenz, abstract, [0053], [0065], [0077], [0105]). Lorenz also teaches the pump is configured to supply the reductant to the second doser through the first doser by teaching that the second metering assembly is fluidly coupled to first metering assembly in series with the pump (Lorenz, [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the pump speed control circuit as taught by Zapf with the bypass path as taught by Lorenz. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to provide pressure protection or assist in priming the pump with a reasonable expectation of success.
Zapf and Lorenz do not explicitly teach while the pump, the first doser, and the second doser operate in the first dosing mode, determine a second speed of the pump required to achieve the predetermined target pressure; while the pump, the first doser, and the second doser operate in the second dosing mode, determine a third speed of the pump required to achieve the predetermined target pressure.
However, Zapf teaches determining the speed of the pump required to achieve the predetermined target pressure at different operation conditions (Zapf, [0030], [0055], [0062]-[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zapf and Lorenz to determine the second speed and third speed using the same method used to determine the first speed as taught by Zapf and thereby control the speed of the pump to maintain the desired pressure when the doser is operating in the first dosing mode or second dosing mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights