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 .
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) 19-27 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2008/0196388) in view of DeGeorge (US 2016/0208666), further in view of Choi et al. (US 2010/0083642).
In Reference to Claim 19
(See Johnson, Figures 1-2)
Johnson et al. (John) discloses:
A method comprising:
operating an engine system (10) including a plurality of cylinders, a plurality of fuel injectors configured to provide fuel the plurality of cylinders (See Johnson, Paragraph [0016]), a compression braking system configured to selectably brake at least a first set of the plurality of cylinders (See Johnson, Paragraph [0015]), and an exhaust aftertreatment system including at least one catalyst (See Johnson, Paragraph [0017]);
determining occurrence of a regeneration condition of the at least one catalyst (See Johnson, Paragraphs [0023], [0025], & claim 1);
in response to the act of determining, operating the engine in a brake-fuel mode wherein the compression brake is actuated to provide compression braking of the first set of the plurality of cylinders and a second set of the plurality of cylinders receives and combust fuel provided from respective ones of the plurality of fuel injectors (See Johnson, Paragraph [0016]); and
in the brake-fuel mode controlling braking of the first set of the plurality of cylinders and fueling of the second set of the plurality of cylinders such that the engine system outputs exhaust at a temperature effective to mitigate the regeneration condition of the at least one catalyst (See Johnson, Paragraphs [0016] & [0019]).
John discloses the claimed invention except:
Determining occurrence of face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst and the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition is greater than a first temperature effective to regenerate the at least one catalyst.
DeGeorge discloses an exhaust aftertreatment system with regeneration control. (See DeGeorge, Abstract). DeGeorge discloses a DOC catalyst upstream of a particulate filter and determining a need for mitigation of a first catalyst (DOC) face plugging condition. (See DeGeorge, Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the DOC and plugging detection and control of DeGeorge to the device of Johnson, as both references are directed towards regeneration control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the DOC of DeGeorge would have reduced emissions of the engine system and mitigation of face plugging of the DOC would have prevented unwanted backpressure and reduced catalytic performance. (See DeGeorge, Paragraph [0004]).
Choi et al. (Choi) discloses a regeneration for a DOC catalyzed soot filter (i.e.-catalyst). (See Choi, Abstract). Choi discloses a DOC catalyzed soot filter and regeneration temperatures of 450 degrees or higher during regeneration effective to mitigate face plugging which is higher than a temperature effective to regenerate the catalyst. (See Choi, Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
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 the DOC catalyzed soot filter and raised the temperature to 450+ degrees centigrade as both references are directed towards DOC catalyzed soot filter regeneration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the catalyzed soot filter structure of Choi in combination with the regeneration temperature greater than 450 degrees centrigrade would have effectively and efficiently mitigated face plugging particulate matter and therefore maintain emissions and backpressure below an acceptable level. (See Choi, Paragraph [0027]).
The Examiner notes that the temperature increase of the John-Degeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses a temperature to mitigate face plugging which is greater than a first temperature effective to regenerate the catalyst as John discloses regeneration temperature needs to only be 350 degrees for 5 minutes or 250 degree for 40% of the engine duty cycle. (See John, Paragraph [0018]). Accordingly, the temperature of the John-Degeorge combination as modified by Choi is a temperature effective to mitigate face plugging which is higher than a first temperature needed to effectively regenerate the catalyst.
In Reference to Claim 20
The John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses:
Wherein the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst is 360 degrees centigrade or higher. (See Choi, Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
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 the DOC catalyzed soot filter and raised the temperature to 450+ degrees centigrade as both references are directed towards DOC catalyzed soot filter regeneration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the catalyzed soot filter structure of Choi in combination with the regeneration temperature greater than 450 degrees centrigrade would have effectively and efficiently mitigated face plugging particulate matter and therefore maintain emissions and backpressure below an acceptable level. (See Choi, Paragraph [0027]).
In Reference to Claim 21
The John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses:
Wherein the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst is 380 degrees centigrade or higher. (See Choi, Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
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 the DOC catalyzed soot filter and raised the temperature to 450+ degrees centigrade as both references are directed towards DOC catalyzed soot filter regeneration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the catalyzed soot filter structure of Choi in combination with the regeneration temperature greater than 450 degrees centrigrade would have effectively and efficiently mitigated face plugging particulate matter and therefore maintain emissions and backpressure below an acceptable level. (See Choi, Paragraph [0027]).
In Reference to Claim 22
The John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses:
Wherein the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst is 400 degrees centigrade or higher. (See Choi, Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
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 the DOC catalyzed soot filter and raised the temperature to 450+ degrees centigrade as both references are directed towards DOC catalyzed soot filter regeneration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the catalyzed soot filter structure of Choi in combination with the regeneration temperature greater than 450 degrees centrigrade would have effectively and efficiently mitigated face plugging particulate matter and therefore maintain emissions and backpressure below an acceptable level. (See Choi, Paragraph [0027]).
In Reference to Claim 23
(See Johnson, Figures 1-2)
The John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses:
wherein the method is performed with the engine system in a stationary or out of mission operating condition. (See John, Paragraph [0018]).
The Examiner notes that the method is performed at least when the engine system is out of mission operating condition (i.e.-low load, idle, or low engine speed).
In Reference to Claim 24
(See Johnson, Figures 1-2)
John discloses:
An engine system comprising:
an engine including a plurality of cylinders (22) (See Johnson, Paragraph [0016]);
a plurality of fuel injectors configured to provide fuel to respective ones of the plurality of cylinders (22) (See Johnson, Paragraph [0016]);
a compression brake coupled with at least a first set of the plurality of cylinders; an exhaust aftertreatment system including a catalyst (See Johnson, Paragraph [0016]); and
an electronic control system (18) configured to:
determine occurrence of a regeneration condition of the at least one catalyst (See Johnson, Paragraphs [0023], [0025], & claim 1), and
in response to the occurrence of a regeneration condition, operate the engine in a brake-fuel mode wherein the compression brake is actuated to provide compression braking of the first set of the plurality of cylinders and a second set of the plurality of cylinders receives and combust fuel provided from respective ones of the plurality of fuel injectors (See Johnson, Paragraph [0016]),
wherein operation of the engine (12) in a brake-fuel mode in the brake-fuel mode provides engine exhaust at a temperature effective to regenerate the at least one catalyst. (See Johnson, Paragraphs [0016] & [0019]).
John discloses the claimed invention except:
Determining occurrence of face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst and the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition is greater than a first temperature effective to regenerate the at least one catalyst.
DeGeorge discloses an exhaust aftertreatment system with regeneration control. (See DeGeorge, Abstract). DeGeorge discloses a DOC catalyst upstream of a particulate filter and determining a need for mitigation of a first catalyst (DOC) face plugging condition. (See DeGeorge, Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the DOC and plugging detection and control of DeGeorge to the device of Johnson, as both references are directed towards regeneration control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the DOC of DeGeorge would have reduced emissions of the engine system and mitigation of face plugging of the DOC would have prevented unwanted backpressure and reduced catalytic performance. (See DeGeorge, Paragraph [0004]).
Choi et al. (Choi) discloses a regeneration for a DOC catalyzed soot filter (i.e.-catalyst). (See Choi, Abstract). Choi discloses a DOC catalyzed soot filter and regeneration temperatures of 450 degrees or higher during regeneration effective to mitigate face plugging which is higher than a temperature effective to regenerate the catalyst. (See Choi, Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
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 the DOC catalyzed soot filter and raised the temperature to 450+ degrees centigrade as both references are directed towards DOC catalyzed soot filter regeneration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the catalyzed soot filter structure of Choi in combination with the regeneration temperature greater than 450 degrees centrigrade would have effectively and efficiently mitigated face plugging particulate matter and therefore maintain emissions and backpressure below an acceptable level. (See Choi, Paragraph [0027]).
The Examiner notes that the temperature increase of the John-Degeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses a temperature to mitigate face plugging which is greater than a first temperature effective to regenerate the catalyst as John discloses regeneration temperature needs to only be 350 degrees for 5 minutes or 250 degree for 40% of the engine duty cycle. (See John, Paragraph [0018]). Accordingly, the temperature of the John-Degeorge combination as modified by Choi is a temperature effective to mitigate face plugging which is higher than a first temperature needed to effectively regenerate the catalyst.
In Reference to Claim 25
The John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses:
Wherein the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst is 360 degrees centigrade or higher.
Choi et al. (Choi) discloses a regeneration for a DOC catalyzed soot filter (i.e.-catalyst). (See Choi, Abstract). Choi discloses a DOC catalyzed soot filter and regeneration temperatures of 450 degrees or higher during regeneration. (See Choi, Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
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 the DOC catalyzed soot filter and raised the temperature to 450+ degrees centigrade as both references are directed towards DOC catalyzed soot filter regeneration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the catalyzed soot filter structure of Choi in combination with the regeneration temperature greater than 450 degrees centrigrade would have effectively and efficiently mitigated face plugging particulate matter and therefore maintain emissions and backpressure below an acceptable level. (See Choi, Paragraph [0027]).
In Reference to Claim 26
The John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses:
Wherein the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst is 380 degrees centigrade or higher.
Choi et al. (Choi) discloses a regeneration for a DOC catalyzed soot filter (i.e.-catalyst). (See Choi, Abstract). Choi discloses a DOC catalyzed soot filter and regeneration temperatures of 450 degrees or higher during regeneration. (See Choi, Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
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 the DOC catalyzed soot filter and raised the temperature to 450+ degrees centigrade as both references are directed towards DOC catalyzed soot filter regeneration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the catalyzed soot filter structure of Choi in combination with the regeneration temperature greater than 450 degrees centrigrade would have effectively and efficiently mitigated face plugging particulate matter and therefore maintain emissions and backpressure below an acceptable level. (See Choi, Paragraph [0027]).
In Reference to Claim 27
The John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses:
Wherein the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst is 400 degrees centigrade or higher.
Choi et al. (Choi) discloses a regeneration for a DOC catalyzed soot filter (i.e.-catalyst). (See Choi, Abstract). Choi discloses a DOC catalyzed soot filter and regeneration temperatures of 450 degrees or higher during regeneration. (See Choi, Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
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 the DOC catalyzed soot filter and raised the temperature to 450+ degrees centigrade as both references are directed towards DOC catalyzed soot filter regeneration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the catalyzed soot filter structure of Choi in combination with the regeneration temperature greater than 450 degrees centrigrade would have effectively and efficiently mitigated face plugging particulate matter and therefore maintain emissions and backpressure below an acceptable level. (See Choi, Paragraph [0027]).
In Reference to Claim 39
The John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses:
Wherein the at least one catalyst is a diesel particulate filter. (See Johnson, Paragraph [0017]).
In Reference to Claim 40
The John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses:
Wherein the at least one catalyst is a diesel particulate filter. (See Johnson, Paragraph [0017]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2008/0196388) in view of DeGeorge (US 2016/0208666) and Choi et al. (US 2010/0083642), further in view of Kemmner et al. (US 2007/0221166).
In Reference to Claim 28
The John-Degeorge combination discloses the claimed invention except:
Wherein the electronic control system is configured to operate the engine in a brake-fuel mode only with the engine system in a stationary operating condition.
Kemmner et al. (Kem) discloses an engine regeneration system. (See Kem, Abstract). Kem discloses a manual regeneration mode which would operate a brake fuel mode only with the engine system in a stationary condition. (See Kem, Paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the brake-fuel regeneration when the vehicle is stationary, as both references are directed towards filter regeneration systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that operating the brake fuel mode one during a stationary regeneration would have allowed for regeneration without interrupting a driving mode as well as permitting a longer regeneration for a thorough cleaning. (See Kem, Paragraph [0019]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that there is no disclosure, suggestion, or even recognition in the art of the possibility of a brake-fuel mode controlling braking of the first set of the plurality of cylinders and fueling of the second set of the plurality of cylinders such that the engine system outputs exhaust at a temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst, wherein the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition is greater than a first temperature effective to regenerate the at least one catalyst, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi fails to disclose “the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition is greater than a first temperature effective to regenerate the at least one catalyst”. However, the Examiner notes that the claim recitations merely define the temperature of face plugging mitigation with respect to its relationship as being greater than a temperature of regeneration (i.e.-the claim recitations do not require that a regeneration be performed at a first temperature). Accordingly, John discloses that regeneration of the catalyst may be achieve at low temperatures of 350°C for 5 minutes. (See John, Paragraph [0018]). However, the John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses temperatures greater than 450°C in order to be effective to mitigate a face plugging of a diesel particulate filter catalyst device. (See Claim 19 rejection above). Therefore, as the temperature for mitigating face-plugging (450°C) merely needs to be greater than a first temperature effective for regeneration (250-350°C), the John-DeGeorge combination as modified by Choi discloses a brake-fuel mode controlling braking of the first set of the plurality of cylinders and fueling of the second set of the plurality of cylinders such that the engine system outputs exhaust at a temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition of the at least one catalyst, wherein the temperature effective to mitigate the face plugging condition is greater than a first temperature effective to regenerate the at least one catalyst as recited in claims 19 and 24, respectively.
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 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