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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 13 October 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2023-177560 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 -– 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0372900 to Yamashita (Yamashita) in view of European Patent No. EP 1 939 415 B1 to Suzuki et al. (Suzuki).
In Reference to Claim 1
Yamashita teaches (see Yamashita and Figs. 3 and 5 – 7 as annotated by the Examiner below):
An exhaust device comprising:
A casing component (Fig. 5 – reference character 41) defining an expansion space (45, 46, 47) within the exhaust gas passage in which the exhaust gas expands (Yamashita paragraph [0044]);
A chamber inlet pipe (51) coupled to the casing component, the chamber inlet pipe including an upstream end that opens outside of the expansion space, and a downstream end that opens inside the expansion space (as seen from Fig. 5 and paragraph [0031]);
A chamber outlet pipe (61) coupled to the casing component, the chamber outlet pipe including a downstream end that opens outside of the expansion space and an upstream end that opens inside the expansion space (as seen from Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035]);
A first catalyst (36) arranged in the exhaust passage upstream of the expansion space; and
A second catalyst (37) arranged at the downstream end of the chamber inlet pipe or the upstream end of the chamber outlet pipe that is within the expansion space (as seen from Fig. 5 and paragraph [0031]).
Yamashita does not teach the following which is taught by Suzuki (see Suzuki and Figs. 1 and 2 below):
Wherein a length of the second catalyst (Fig. 2 – reference character 6) is less than a length of the first catalyst (5) (as seen from Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Suzuki to configure a length of the second catalyst to be less than a length of the first catalyst within the exhaust apparatus of Yamashita since it would enable a resonator to reduce a negative pressure wave and a reflected wave in the exhaust pipe (i.e., the reduced diameter pipe channel) positioned between the first and second catalysts as taught by Suzuki (paragraph [0040]).
In Reference to Claim 2
Yamashita teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the expansion space adjoining the chamber inlet pipe or the chamber outlet pipe includes a dimension perpendicular to a direction of flow of the exhaust gas that is greater than a diameter of the downstream end of the chamber inlet pipe or the upstream end of the chamber outlet pipe (as seen from Fig. 7 and Yamashita paragraph [0031]).
In Reference to Claim 6
Yamashita teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the second catalyst is arranged at the downstream end of the chamber inlet pipe (as seen from Fig. 5 and Yamashita paragraph [0031]).
Yamashita does not teach the following which is taught by Suzuki:
Wherein a transverse dimension of the second catalyst (Fig. 2 – reference character 6) is less than a transverse dimension of the first catalyst (5) (as seen from Fig. 2), and
Wherein the chamber inlet pipe (22) further includes a reduced diameter pipe channel defined between the first catalyst and the second catalyst (as seen from Fig. 2 and Suzuki paragraph [0027]).
In Reference to Claim 7
Yamashita teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the casing component is defined by a plurality of split bodies (Fig. 6 – reference characters SB1, SB2) joined together so as to form a split structure, and
Wherein the chamber inlet pipe or the chamber outlet pipe in which the second catalyst is located is fitted into joining sections of the split structure (as seen from Figs. 5 and 6).
In Reference to Claim 8
Yamashita teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, further comprising:
A first exhaust gas sensor (Fig. 3 – reference character 38) located in the exhaust gas passage upstream of the first catalyst so as to detect a state of the exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust passage (Yamashita paragraph [0030]); and
A second exhaust gas sensor (39) located in the exhaust gas passage downstream of the first catalyst and upstream of the second catalyst so as to detect a state of the exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust passage (paragraph [0031]).
In Reference to Claim 9
Yamashita teaches:
A vehicle comprising the exhaust device of claim 1 (see Yamashita paragraph [0063] and the rejection of claim 1 above).
In Reference to Claim 10
Yamashita teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the second catalyst is arranged at the downstream end of the chamber inlet pipe (as seen from Fig. 5).
Yamashita does not teach the following which is taught by Suzuki:
Wherein the chamber inlet pipe has a curved portion at an upstream region of the second catalyst (as seen from Fig. 2).
In Reference to Claim 11
Yamashita teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 10 discussed above, further comprising:
A second exhaust gas sensor arranged in the exhaust gas passage downstream of the first catalyst and upstream of the second catalyst so as to detect a state of the exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust gas passage (Yamashita paragraph [0031]).
In Reference to Claim 12
Yamashita teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the second catalyst is arranged at the downstream end of the chamber inlet pipe (as seen from Fig. 5), and
Wherein a second exhaust gas sensor is arranged in the exhaust gas passage downstream of the first catalyst and upstream of the second catalyst so as to detect a state of the exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust gas passage (Yamashita paragraph [0031]).
Yamashita does not teach the following which is taught by Suzuki:
Wherein the second exhaust gas sensor (Fig. 2 – reference character 30) is arranged at a point which is spaced apart from the second catalyst a distance that is at least twice the length of the second catalyst (as seen from Fig. 2).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0225953 to Ono et al. (Ono).
In Reference to Claim 4
Yamashita teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the casing component includes a divider wall (Fig. 7 – reference characters 43, 44) configured to separate the expansion space into a plurality of expansion compartments (45, 46, 47).
Neither Yamashita nor Suzuki teach the following which is taught by Ono (see Ono and Fig. 3A as annotated by the Examiner below):
Wherein an axis (Fig. 3A – reference character A) of the chamber inlet pipe (60) or the chamber outlet pipe intersects the divider wall (57A) at a non-perpendicular angle (as seen from Fig. 3A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Ono to arrange an axis of the chamber inlet pipe so as to intersect the divider wall at a non-perpendicular angle within the exhaust apparatus of Yamashita, as modified by Suzuki, since it would enable heat exchange to take place across the partition plate such that the high-temperature exhaust gases flowing from the catalytic unit can be effectively cooled as taught by Ono (paragraph [0056]).
In Reference to Claim 5
Yamashita teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the casing component includes a divider wall (Fig. 7 – reference characters 43, 44) configured to separate the expansion space into a plurality of expansion compartments (45, 46, 47), and
Wherein adjacent expansion compartments of the plurality of expansion compartments communicate with each other via a communication hole of the divider wall (through which pipes 53 and 57 extend).
Neither Yamashita nor Suzuki teach the following which is taught by Ono:
Wherein the chamber inlet pipe (Fig. 3A – reference character 60) or the chamber outlet pipe is open towards a portion of the divider wall (57A) which is spaced apart from the communication hole (through which pipe 50 extends).
Claims 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0114750 to Yoshida (Yoshida).
In Reference to Claim 13
Neither Yamashita nor Suzuki teach the following which is taught by Yoshida (see Yoshida and Figs. 4Y and 5Y below):
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the second catalyst (Fig. 5Y – reference character 51*) is arranged at the upstream end of the chamber outlet pipe (52) (as seen from Figs. 4Y and 5Y).
* – It is to be noted that the spark arrester body portion 51 of Yoshida is described as being a soot filter (see Yoshida paragraph [0072]). Soot filters are well known in the art to include a catalyst so as to form, for example, a catalyzed soot filter (CSF) or catalyzed diesel particulate filter (CDPF).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Yoshida to arrange the second catalyst at the upstream end of the chamber outlet pipe within the exhaust apparatus of Yamashita, as modified by Suzuki, since it reduce a back pressure within the expansion chamber as taught by Yoshida (paragraph [0009]).
In Reference to Claim 14
Neither Yamashita nor Suzuki teach the following which is taught by Yoshida:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 13 discussed above, wherein the chamber outlet pipe includes a curved portion at a downstream region of the second catalyst (as seen from Fig. 4Y).
In Reference to Claim 15
Neither Yamashita nor Suzuki teach the following which is taught by Yoshida:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 13 discussed above, further comprising a divider wall (Fig. 5Y – reference character 351) arranged inside the casing component (3) so as to separate the expansion space into a plurality of expansion compartments (37, 38),
Wherein the second catalyst is supported at the divider wall (as seen from Fig. 5Y).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
438
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED BY EXAMINER
PNG
media_image4.png
352
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
246
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
238
502
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
565
440
media_image7.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED BY EXAMINER
PNG
media_image8.png
370
538
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
343
516
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 1 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.
Applicant’s amendment sufficiently clarifies the indefiniteness that served as grounds for the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is hereby withdrawn.
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 JORGE LEON JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9am - 7pm ET).
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JORGE L LEON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights