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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 27 January 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,168,946 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell et al. (US 2014/0245719).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitchell et al. (Mitch) discloses:
An aftertreatment catalyst monitor, comprising:
one or more processors (42) (See Mitch, Paragraph [0039]) to:
receive, from a sensor (28), a temperature of an exhaust gas entering an aftertreatment system (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0038] & [0040]);
determine, based on the temperature, a catalyst loading of a catalyst of the aftertreatment system (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]);
determine, based on the catalyst loading and an amount of time relating to the catalyst loading, that a health notification threshold for the catalyst is met (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]); and
output a notification indicative of the health notification threshold being met. (See Mitch, Paragraph [0068]).
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein the one or more processors (42) are to generate the notification for output as at least one of a graphical display or an audible alarm instruction. (See Mitch, Paragraph [0042]).
In Reference to Claim 3
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein the one or more processors (42) are to determine a catalyst health indicator based on an increment rate corresponding to the catalyst loading or a decrement rate corresponding to the catalyst loading. (See Mitch, Paragraph [0048]).
In Reference to Claim 4
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein the health notification threshold comprises a threshold temperature, and the one or more processors (42) are to determine that the health notification threshold is met based at least on comparing the temperature with the threshold temperature. (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
In Reference to Claim 6
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein the one or more processors (42) are to determine that the health notification threshold is met based on determining that at least one of an alarm threshold value or a warning threshold value is met. (See Mitch, Paragraph [0048] w/respect to degrees of performance).
In Reference to Claim 7
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein: responsive to the catalyst loading being equal to the alarm threshold value, the one or more processors (42) are to generate the notification for output as an audible alarm; and responsive to the catalyst loading being equal to the warning threshold, the one or more processors (42) are to generate the notification for output as a warning. (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0042] & [0048] w/respect to degrees of performance).
The Examiner notes that the processor of Mitch may output both for every degree of performance.
In Reference to Claim 8
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein the one or more processors (42) are to log a fault code responsive to determining that the health notification threshold is met. (See Mitch, Paragraph [0047]).
In Reference to Claim 9
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein the one or more processors (42) are to determine that the health notification threshold is met further based on a mass flow of the exhaust gas. (See Mitch Paragraph [0046]).
In Reference to Claim 10
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
Wherein the one or more processors (42) are to increment or decrement the catalyst health indicator based on temperature. (See Mitch Paragraph [0046] & Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]). The system of Mitch at least increments the catalyst health indicator based on temperature.
In Reference to Claim 13
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
An aftertreatment catalyst monitor system, comprising:
an aftertreatment system comprising a catalyst;
a sensor (28) configured to detect a temperature of an exhaust gas entering the aftertreatment system (See Mitch, Paragraph [0036]); and
one or more processors (42) to:
receive, from the sensor (28), the temperature (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0038] & [0040]);
determine, based on the temperature, a catalyst loading of a catalyst (22) of the aftertreatment system (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]);
determine, based on the catalyst loading and an amount of time relating to the catalyst loading, that a health notification threshold for the catalyst (22) is met (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]); and
output a notification indicative of the health notification threshold being met. (See Mitch, Paragraph [0068]).
In Reference to Claim 15
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein the one or more processors (42) are to provide the notification to an input/output device when a catalyst health indicator is less than or equal to a health warning threshold value. (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0040]-[0042]).
In Reference to Claim 16
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
A method, comprising:
receiving, from a sensor (28), a temperature of an exhaust gas entering an aftertreatment system (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0038] & [0040]);
determining, based on the temperature, a catalyst loading of a catalyst (22) of the aftertreatment system (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]);
determining, based on the catalyst loading and an amount of time relating to the catalyst loading, that at least one threshold for the catalyst loading is met (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]); and
outputting a notification responsive to the at least one threshold being met. (See Mitch, Paragraph [0068]).
In Reference to Claim 17
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein the at least one threshold comprises a warning threshold and an alarm threshold less than the warning threshold, the method comprising outputting the notification to include a warning responsive to an indicator of the catalyst loading being less than the warning threshold and outputting the notification to include an alarm responsive to the indicator of the catalyst loading being less than the alarm threshold. (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0042] & [0048] w/respect to degrees of performance).
The Examiner notes that the processor of Mitch may output both for every degree of performance.
In Reference to Claim 18
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
wherein outputting the notification comprises wherein providing at least one of a graphical display or an audible alarm instruction. (See Mitch, Paragraph [0042]).
In Reference to Claim 20
(See Mitchell, Figures 1-5)
Mitch discloses:
determining whether the at least one threshold is met based on comparing the temperature with at least one temperature threshold. (See Mitch, Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 2014/0245719) in view of Xu et al. (US 2008/0271440).
In Reference to Claim 11
Mitch discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the one or more processors are to increment or decrement the catalyst health indicator according to rates of absorption and adsorption on the catalyst, respectively, of a predefined exhaust gas species.
Xu et al. (Xu) discloses an exhaust gas SCR deposit control system. (See Xu, Abstract). Xu discloses at least incrementing the catalyst health indicator according to rates of absorption and adsorption on the catalyst, respectively, of a predefined exhaust gas species (i.e.-NOx). (See Xu, Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used NOx conversion efficiency to adjust the catalyst health indicator of Mitch, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas SCR deposit control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that efficiency is a direct indicator of deposit accumulation and additionally considering efficiency of the SCR catalyst to determine catalyst health would proactively prevent unwanted emissions from occurring and enhance the accuracy of the system. (See Xu, Paragraph [0027]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 2014/0245719) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2014/0017794).
In Reference to Claim 12
Mitch discloses the claimed invention except:
Wherein the one or more processors are to determine that the health notification threshold is met further based on a time at idle of an engine coupled with the aftertreatment system.
Zeng et al. (Zeng) discloses an exhaust gas aftertreatment system. (See Zeng, Abstract). Zeng discloses time at idle as an indication of catalyst health due to buildup of deposits. (See Zeng, Paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered time at idle as an indication of a catalyst health threshold, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas aftertreatment systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that time at idle causes deposit buildup over time and such consideration of a time at idle to determine the catalyst health would enhance the regeneration and notification timing of a catalyst health indication. (See Zeng, Paragraph [0027]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 2014/0245719) in view of Light-Holets et al. (US 2015/0240686).
In Reference to Claim 19
Mitch discloses the claimed invention except:
further comprising automatically controlling an engine to increase engine loading in response to determining that the at least one threshold is met.
Light-Holets (Light) discloses an SCR catalyst deposit regeneration device. (See Light, Paragraph [0022]). Light discloses automatically controlling an engine to increase engine loading in response to determining that the at least one threshold is met. (See Light, Paragraphs [0022] & [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have automatically increased engine loading in response to a notification in the device of Mitch, as both references are directed towards SCR catalyst deposit regeneration devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a response would have allowed for regeneration of the SCR device removing deposits and restoring the efficiency of the catalyst thereby extending the life and need for service. (See Light, Paragraph [0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 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.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the one or more processors are to determine that the health notification threshold is met responsive to the temperature being greater than approximately 290 degrees Celsius and the time being greater than or equal to approximately one hour.” in claim 5 and “wherein the one or more processors are to: decrement a catalyst health indicator when the temperature is at or below a decrement threshold temperature (T1);increment the catalyst health indicator when the temperature is at or above an increment threshold temperature (T2); and hold the catalyst health indicator constant while the temperature is between the decrement threshold temperature (T1) and the increment threshold temperature (T2).” in claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Mitchell does not disclose “receive, from a sensor, a temperature of an exhaust gas entering the aftertreatment system; determine, based on the temperature, a catalyst loading of a catalyst of the aftertreatment system", the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Mitchell does not disclose “receive, from a sensor, a temperature of an exhaust gas entering the aftertreatment system; determine, based on the temperature, a catalyst loading of a catalyst of the aftertreatment system" as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that as Mitchell uses a temporal difference of temperatures, Mitchell fails to disclose using a single temperature value. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determining catalyst loading based on a single temperature value) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, the claim recitations do not preclude the use of other data, including temperature, from the determination of catalyst loading. Additionally, Applicant argues that Mitchell fails to disclose the feature of “determine, based on the catalyst loading and an amount of time relating to the catalyst loading, that a health notification threshold for the catalyst has been met”. However, the device of Mitchell utilizes both temperature and time to determine both catalyst loading and that a threshold has been met. Specifically, Mitchell utilizes a temperature signal and a delay period as compared to a threshold to determine catalyst loading. Accordingly, in the determination of health notification threshold being met, both the catalyst loading and a delay period (i.e.-time relating to the catalyst loading) are utilized.
Additionally, Applicant argues that independent claims 13 and 16 overcome the rejection of record for at least the same reasons provided by Applicant with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections of independent claims 13 and 16 are maintained for at least the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746