DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed January 22, 2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (Miller) (Patent/Publication Number US 2008/0078172) in view of Hecker et al. (Hecker) (Patent/Publication Number 6,584,768).
Regarding claim 10, Miller discloses a method of operation associated with a particulate filter regeneration system (10) comprising: connecting the particulate filter (46, 48) on the system (10, 14) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0025-0026]); dispensing a fuel (68, 70, 82) through one or more supply lines and into an exhaust pipe (14); and igniting (56) the fuel thereby regenerating the particulate filter (e.g. See Paragraphs [0028] Central stepped bore 60 may receive fuel injector 52 through an inner surface 80 (referring to the surface of mounting member 50 illustrated in FIG. 2 as being open to exhaust treatment device 46). As illustrated in FIG. 4A, central stepped bore 60, together with fuel injector 52, may form a pilot fuel chamber 82, a main fuel chamber 84, and a coolant chamber 86 within the steps of bore 60. Pilot fuel chamber 82 may be fluidly communicated with pilot fuel passage 68 (referring to FIG. 3), while main fuel chamber 84 may be fluidly communicated with main fuel passage 70. .....) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0026-0028, and 0032]). However, Miller fails to discloses the step of removing the particulate filter from a vehicle.
Hecker teaches that it is conventional in the art, to use the method of operation a particulate filter regeneration system (20) comprising: a step of removing the particulate filter (22) from a vehicle (10) (e.g. See Column 4, lines 1-15: We now turn to FIG. 7, we can examine additional features of the System (20) of the present invention. FIG. 7 is a perspective view of the Assembly (20) of FIGS. 5 and 6, showing the Heat Shield Door Open (48). As it can be seen in FIG. 7, the Cartridges (22) and (24) are preferably each provided with Handle (50) to assist the user in their removal. When installed, it is simple matter of positioning the Removable Actuating Handle (52) to lock or unlock the Cartridges (22) and (24). The Actuating Handle (52), may be simply a bar or a rod already in use on a Conventional Tractor-Trailer Truck.) (e.g. See Column 4, lines 1-15; Col. 5, lines 7-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to use the method of operation a particulate filter regeneration system comprising: the step of removing the particulate filter from a vehicle of Miller, as taught by Hecker for the purpose of removing the particulates deposits on the particulate filter of an internal combustion engine, so as to rejuvenate the particulate filter, and further improve the performance of the engine and the efficiency of the emission system, since the use thereof would have been routinely practiced by those with ordinary skill in the art to maintain high purification efficiency of a particulate filter system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 9 are allowed.
Claims 11-15 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; and also to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action, such as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112 2nd paragraph, and double patenting.
Since allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant is encouraged to submit Final Formal Drawings (If Needed) in response to this Office action. The early submission of formal drawings will permit the Office to review the drawings for acceptability and to resolve any informalities remaining therein before the application is passed to issue. This will avoid possible delays in the issue process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not completely persuasive. Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are pending.
Applicant’s cooperation in explaining the claims subject matter more specific to overcome the claim rejection is appreciated. The Terminal Disclaimer has been approved to overcome double patenting rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as discussed above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and consists of three patents:
Hayashi et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2014/0196974), Kimura et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2011/0180344), and Kudoh et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 6302935), all discloses an exhaust gas purification for use with an internal combustion engine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Binh Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-4865. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Mark Laurenzi, can be reach on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Binh Q. Tran
/BINH Q TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3748
April 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights