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 10 March 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,214,654 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) 16-17 and 19-20 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minnichsoffer et al. (US 2016/0061088).
In Reference to Claim 16
(See Minnichsoffer, Figures 1-9)
Minnichsoffer et al. (Minn) discloses:
A method of cooling a portion of an exhaust assembly for an engine of a utility vehicle (See Minn, Paragraphs [0089]-[0091]), comprising:
providing an exhaust conduit (410) (See Minn, Paragraph [0091]);
fluidly coupling a catalyst to the exhaust conduit (410) (See Minn, Paragraph [0073] w/respect to catalytic converter);
directing a fluid at a portion (404 & exhaust duct 410) of the exhaust assembly (See Minn, Paragraph [0078]); and
decreasing a temperature of an exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust assembly after directing a fluid at the portion (404 & exhaust duct 410) of the exhaust assembly. (See Minn, Paragraph [0078]).
The Examiner notes that cooling air that is colder than the exhaust and the sensor is provided to flow around both the sensor and the exhaust pipe, thus resulting in cooler sensor and exhaust gas temperatures due to the direction and flow of cooling air. (See Minn, Paragraphs [0105]-[0106]).
In Reference to Claim 17
(See Minnichsoffer, Figures 1-9)
Minn discloses:
wherein directing the fluid includes directing pass-by air through a portion of the utility vehicle and towards the portion of the exhaust assembly. (See Minn, Paragraph [0063] & [0075]-0076]).
The Examiner notes that the air utilized by the transmission to be pumped over the exhaust constitutes “pass-by air” as defined under broadest reasonable interpretation and by Applicant’s Paragraph [0085] as all air utilized in the rear-engined vehicle of Minn passes by and around the vehicle.
In Reference to Claim 19
(See Minnichsoffer, Figures 1-9)
Minn discloses:
wherein directing the fluid includes directing air through a fan and towards the portion of the exhaust assembly. (See Minn, Paragraph [0079]).
In Reference to Claim 20
(See Minnichsoffer, Figures 1-9)
Minn discloses:
further comprising providing a transmission (420) operably coupled to the engine (50), and wherein directing the fluid includes exhausting air from the transmission and directing the air towards the portion of the exhaust assembly. (See Minn, Paragraphs [0078]-[0079]).
Claim(s) 16, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waggoner et al. (US 2010/0229540).
In Reference to Claim 16
(See Waggoner, Figures 1-8)
Waggoner et al. (Wag) discloses:
A method of cooling a portion of an exhaust assembly for an engine of a utility vehicle (See Wag, Paragraphs [0004] & [0038] w/respect to vessel/boat), comprising:
providing an exhaust conduit (i.e.-96 piping through which the exhaust flows);
fluidly coupling a catalyst (18) to the exhaust conduit (96) (See Wag, Paragraphs [0028]-[0029]);
directing a fluid (coolant/water) at a portion (16,18) of the exhaust assembly (See Wag, Paragraph [0036]); and
decreasing a temperature of an exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust assembly after directing a fluid at the portion (16,18) of the exhaust assembly. (See Wag, Paragraph [0036]).
In Reference to Claim 21
(See Minnichsoffer, Figures 1-9)
Wag discloses:
wherein directing the fluid includes flowing the fluid through a cooling jacket positioned at the portion of the exhaust assembly. (See Wag, Paragraph [0008]).
In Reference to Claim 22
(See Minnichsoffer, Figures 1-9)
Wag discloses:
further comprising providing an exhaust manifold fluidly coupled to the engine and the exhaust conduit and positioning the water jacket along a portion of the exhaust manifold. (See Wag, Paragraph [0008]).
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) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchweger et al. (US 4,455,971) in view of Torosian et al. (US 3,841,841).
In Reference to Claim 16
(See Kirchweger, Figures 1-3)
Kirchweger et al. (Kirch) discloses:
A method of cooling a portion of an exhaust assembly for an engine of a utility vehicle (1) (See Kirch, Column 1, Lines 6-18), comprising:
providing an exhaust conduit (13,30);
directing a fluid (17,28) at a portion (13) of the exhaust assembly (See Kirch, Column 3, Lines 27-43); and
decreasing a temperature of an exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust assembly after directing a fluid at the portion (13) of the exhaust assembly. (See Kirch, Column 3, Lines 27-43 w/respect to cooling).
Kirch discloses the claimed invention except:
fluidly coupling a catalyst to the exhaust conduit.
Torosian et al. (Toro) discloses an exhaust device for an engine for mitigating unwanted noise. (See Toro, Abstract). Toro discloses attached a muffler/catalyst to the exhaust conduit of a vehicle. (See Toro, Column 1, Lines 18-27).
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 muffler/catalyst of Toro as the muffler of the device of Kirch, as both references are directed towards sound attenuation of a motor vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the muffler of Toro would have reduced noise levels of the engine while also reducing emissions output of the exhaust improving the overall environment and noise level of the vehicle of Kirch. (See Toro, Column 1, Lines 18-27).
In Reference to Claim 18
(See Kirchweger, Figures 1-3)
The Kirch-Toro combination discloses:
wherein directing the fluid includes directing air through a radiator (5) fluidly coupled to the engine (4) and towards the portion (13) of the exhaust assembly. (See Kirch, Column 2, Line 54 – Column 3, Line 26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that none of the cited references disclose “directing a fluid at a portion of the exhaust assembly; and decreasing a temperature of an exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust assembly after directing a fluid at the portion of the exhaust assembly.”, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that none of the rejections to Minnischsoffer, Waggoner, or Kirschweger in view of Torosian, disclose the features of “directing a fluid at a portion of the exhaust assembly; and decreasing a temperature of an exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust assembly after directing a fluid at the portion of the exhaust assembly” recited in claim 16. Specifically, Applicant argues that none of the cited rejections discloses the temporal order of “directing a fluid” and then decreasing temperature. (emphasis added). However, the Examiner notes that such temporal order does not preclude cooling/decreasing temperature of the component from occurring at other times. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the temporal order is merely a result of the thermodynamic heat transfer of a fluid which has been directed towards/around/across an exhaust pipe or component which has heat. In other words, directing and flowing a cooling fluid (i.e.-cooler fluid) around a hotter component will result in the temporal order of “directing a fluid” and then decreasing the temperature of the component to be cooled as such is the order of heat transfer from the component to the cooling fluid. Specifically, each of the recited rejections to claim 16 disclose directing a fluid (via a pipe, manifold, or fluid passage) towards and/or around an exhaust component which will have the direct result of cooling said component (i.e.-decreasing temperature). Accordingly, the rejections of claim 16 to Minnischsoffer, Waggoner, and Kirschweger in view of Torosian, each respectively discloses “directing a fluid at a portion of the exhaust assembly; and decreasing a temperature of an exhaust gas flowing through the exhaust assembly after directing a fluid at the portion of the exhaust assembly”.
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
Prosecution Insights