DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments received 27 May 2025.
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
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beyer et al. (US 9,322,309 B2; hereinafter Beyer) in view of Chai et al. (CN 214533158 U using machine translation; hereinafter Chai).
Regarding claim 1, Beyer discloses an ultra-compact post-processing system [1], comprising: a mixer [6], which is provided with an inlet joint [A] (see annotated Figure 3 below for all reference letters); a urea nozzle [24] connected to the inlet joint [A]; a shell [2] provided outside a part of the mixer [6] and provided with a gas outlet [B]; and a catalytic disc [21], wherein the catalytic disc [21] is positioned inside the shell [2], arranged between an outer periphery (see exterior of tube [5]) of the mixer [6] and an inner wall of the shell [2], and divides an inner cavity of the shell [2] into a mixing cavity [8] and a gas-return cavity [9], the gas outlet [B] of the shell [2] is located at the gas-return cavity [9], and an outlet end [10] of the mixer [6] is provided with a mixing section [5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16] that is located in the mixing cavity [8], and the mixing section [5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16] comprises a mixing pipe [5] and swirl holes [12] arranged in a circumferential direction of the mixing pipe [5], and a swirl vane [14] with an opening angle is provided on each of the swirl holes [12], and an axial end of the mixing pipe [5] is open (see outlets [16]; also see col. 5 lines 48-49: “the at least one outlet directly adjoins the second end”) (col. 5 lines 3-54; col. 7 line 7 – col. 8 line 21, and Figures 1 and 3-4). Beyer does not disclose the inlet joint being connected with a supercharger body. Chai, however, teaches a similar ultra-compact post-processing system (Figure 2), comprising a mixer [4, 6, 9], which is provided with an inlet joint [8] to be connected with a supercharger body (page 4: “the waste gas discharged by the supercharger enters the mixing cylinder 9 of the front cavity 1 through the waste gas inlet 8”) (pages 3-4 and Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Beyer’s inlet joint to be connected with a supercharger body because Chai teaches that compact SCR post-treatment systems are tightly coupled close to the supercharger outlet to meet emission requirements (page 1). Additionally, it is notoriously well known in the art to utilize forced induction (supercharging/turbocharging) for diesel engines to force more air into the engine to produce more power and enhance performance.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified Beyer discloses the ultra-compact post-processing system according to claim 1, wherein a gas-return passage (see [8, 9]) is formed between the outer periphery (see exterior of tube [5]) of the mixer [6] and the inner wall of the shell [2], and the gas outlet [B] is arranged close to a tail end of the gas-return passage (see [8, 9]) (col. 7 line 61 – col. 8 line 17 and annotated Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Beyer discloses the ultra-compact post-processing system according to claim 1, wherein the catalytic disc [21] is positioned close to the inlet joint [A] of the mixer [6] (col. 7 lines 44-52 and Figures 1 and annotated Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Beyer discloses the ultra-compact post-processing system according to claim 1, wherein the catalytic disc [21] is sealed with the inner wall of the shell [2] and an outer wall of the mixer [6] (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Beyer discloses an assembly [19], comprising an ultra-compact post-processing system [1], wherein the ultra-compact post-processing system [1] comprises: a mixer [6], which is provided with an inlet joint [A] (see annotated Figure 3 above for all reference letters); a urea nozzle [24] connected to the inlet joint [A]; a shell [2] provided outside a part of the mixer [6] and provided with a gas outlet [B]; and a catalytic disc [21], wherein the catalytic disc [21] is positioned inside the shell [2], arranged between an outer periphery (see exterior of tube [5]) of the mixer [6] and an inner wall of the shell [2], and divides an inner cavity of the shell [2] into a mixing cavity [8] and a gas-return cavity [9], the gas outlet [B] of the shell [2] is located at the gas-return cavity [9], and an outlet end [10] of the mixer [6] is provided with a mixing section [5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16] that is located in the mixing cavity [8], and the mixing section [5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16] comprises a mixing pipe [5] and swirl holes [12] arranged in a circumferential direction of the mixing pipe [5], and a swirl vane [14] with an opening angle is provided on each of the swirl holes [12], and an axial end of the mixing pipe [5] is open (see outlets [16]; also see col. 5 lines 48-49: “the at least one outlet directly adjoins the second end”) (col. 5 lines 3-54; col. 7 line 7 – col. 8 line 21, and Figures 1 and 3-4). Beyer does not disclose the assembly being a supercharger assembly. Chai, however, teaches a similar supercharger assembly, comprising a supercharger body (page 4: “supercharger”) and an ultra-compact post-processing system (Figure 2), wherein the ultra-compact post-processing system (Figure 2) comprises: an inlet joint [8] to be connected with a supercharger body (page 4: “supercharger”); and the supercharger body (page 4: “supercharger”) is provided with a supercharger outlet (page 1: “supercharger air outlet”), which is connected to the inlet joint [8] of the ultra-compact post-processing system (Figure 2) (page 4: “the waste gas discharged by the supercharger enters the mixing cylinder 9 of the front cavity 1 through the waste gas inlet 8”) (pages 1, 3-4, and Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Beyer’s assembly as a supercharger assembly comprising a supercharger body having a supercharger outlet which is connected to the inlet joint because Chai teaches that compact SCR post-treatment systems are tightly coupled close to the supercharger outlet to meet emission requirements (page 1). Additionally, it is notoriously well known in the art to utilize forced induction (supercharging/turbocharging) for diesel engines to force more air into the engine to produce more power and enhance performance.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Beyer discloses an engine [20], comprising the supercharger assembly according to claim 9 (col. 8 lines 18-21 and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Beyer discloses the supercharger assembly according to claim 9, wherein a gas-return passage (see [8, 9]) is formed between the outer periphery (see exterior of tube [5]) of the mixer [6] and the inner wall of the shell [2], and the gas outlet [B] is arranged close to a tail end of the gas-return passage (see [8, 9]) (col. 7 line 61 – col. 8 line 17 and annotated Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Beyer discloses the supercharger assembly according to claim 9, wherein the catalytic disc [21] is positioned close to the inlet joint [A] of the mixer [6] (col. 7 lines 44-52 and Figures 1 and annotated Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Beyer discloses the supercharger assembly according to claim 9, wherein the catalytic disc [21] is sealed with the inner wall of the shell [2] and an outer wall of the mixer [6] (Figure 1).
Claims 3, 6-8, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beyer in view of Chai as applied to claims 1, 2, 9, and 11 above, and further in view of Hylands et al. (US 2010/0263352 A1; hereinafter Hylands).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the modified Beyer does not disclose the shell being provided with a curved bowl bottom facing the outlet end of the mixer. Hylands, however, teaches a similar ultra-compact post-processing system [10], comprising a mixer [12] having an outlet end (see [15] in Figure 4), a shell (see [2] in Figure 4), a gas-return passage (see [38, 6, 22] in Figure 4) formed between an outer periphery of the mixer [12] and an inner wall of the shell (see [2] in Figure 4), wherein the shell (see [2] in Figure 4) is provided with a curved bowl bottom [14] facing the outlet end (see [15] in Figure 4) of the mixer [12] and configured to guide a gas to flow back to the gas-return passage (see [38, 6, 22] in Figure 4) (paragraphs 0072-0077 and Figure 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Beyer shell bottom as a curved bowl facing the outlet end of the mixer because Hylands teaches that this configuration helps direct the flow of exhaust gases onto a face of an annular catalyst (paragraph 0077).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the modified Beyer discloses the ultra-compact post-processing system according to claim 1 and the supercharger assembly according to claim 9, wherein the catalytic disc [21] is a carrier, which is coated with an SCR catalyst (col. 7 lines 44-47 and Figure 1). The modified Beyer is silent as to the specific composition of the catalytic disc. Hylands, however, teaches a similar catalytic disc [6], wherein the catalytic disc [6] is a metal annular carrier (paragraph 0074; wherein the catalysts [4, 6] can be welded together and are thus metal) or an annular ceramic cordierite carrier, which is coated with a copper-based molecular sieve (i.e., zeolite) SCR catalyst or a vanadium-based SCR catalyst (paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0072-0074, and Figures 1-2 and 4-5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Beyer catalytic disc to be a metal annular carrier which is coated with a copper-based molecular sieve because Hylands teaches that this configuration forms an efficient SCR system (paragraph 0012).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 16-17, the modified Beyer discloses the ultra-compact post-processing system according to claim 1 and the supercharger assembly according to claim 9, wherein the mixer [6] comprises a pipe body [5] (col. 7 lines 61-64 and Figure 3). The modified Beyer does not disclose a perforated plate arranged perpendicular to an inner wall of the pipe body. Hylands, however, teaches a similar ultra-compact post-processing system [10], comprising a mixer [12] provided with an inlet joint [30], wherein the mixer [12] comprises a pipe body [12a] and a perforated plate [12b] that is arranged perpendicular to an inner wall of the pipe body [12a], the perforated plate [12b] is arranged close to the inlet joint [30] of the mixer [12] (paragraphs 0043, 0069, 0071, 0075, and Figure 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Beyer to include a perforated plate arranged perpendicular to an inner wall of the pipe body close to the inlet joint of the mixer because Hylands teaches that this configuration ensures even distribution of exhaust gases through the mixer (paragraphs 0043 and 0075).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Beyer has been introduced for teaching a mixing pipe with circumferentially arranged swirl holes, swirl vanes with an opening angle provided on each of the swirl holes, and an axial end of the mixing pipe being open as outlined above.
Conclusion
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 AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746