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 Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1
Line recites the language “at least one of the inlet conduit or the endcap” (emphasis added). The claim language should be amended such that it reads –at least one of the inlet conduit [[or]] and the endcap—
Regarding Claim 16
Line 3 recites the language “at least one of: coincident with the decomposition conduit axis; or parallel to the decomposition conduit axis” (emphasis added). The claim language should be amended such that it reads –at least one of: coincident with the decomposition conduit axis; [[or]] and parallel to the decomposition conduit axis —
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al., CN 205025535, in view of Golin, US 2019/0101037.
Regarding Claim 1
Wei discloses a decomposition chamber for an exhaust aftertreatment system, the decomposition chamber comprising:
an inlet conduit (42, inlet tube) (Wei, Figure 17) configured to receive exhaust, the inlet conduit (42) centered on an inlet conduit axis [a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that inlet tube (42) has an inherent axis];
a decomposition conduit (124, exhaust after-treatment component) coupled to the inlet conduit (42), the decomposition conduit (124) centered on a decomposition conduit axis [a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the decomposition conduit (124) has an inherent axis] (Wei, Figure 17);
an endcap (130) coupled to the decomposition conduit (Wei, Figure 17); and
a guide swirl mixer (132, mixing assembly) coupled to at least one of the inlet conduit (42) or the endcap (130) (Wei, Figure 17).
However, Wei does not explicitly disclose that the guide swirl mixer comprises: a first portion disposed within the inlet conduit, and a second portion disposed within the decomposition conduit such that the inlet conduit axis extends through the second portion, the second portion extending at least partially around the decomposition conduit axis.
Golin teaches: a guide swirl mixer (20, mixer assembly) (Golin, Figure 2) comprising:
a first portion (36, first portion which extends along axis A1) (Golin, [0055], Figure 2) disposed within the inlet conduit (exhaust enters at (58)) (Golin, Figure 2), and
a second portion (38, second portion which extends along axis A2) (Golin, [0055], Figure 2) disposed within a decomposition conduit (38) [a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reductant injector (28) sprays reductant (57) and forms the decomposition conduit (38) similar to Wei’s element (124)] such that the inlet conduit axis (A1) extends through the second portion (38), the second portion (38) extending at least partially around the decomposition conduit axis (A2) (Golin, Figure 3).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art to combine the mixer as taught by Golin with the mixer exhaust system as taught by Wei for the advantage of a reduction of urea deposits (Golin, [0055]).
Regarding Claim 2
Wei and Golin teach the decomposition chamber of claim 1. Wei further discloses that the inlet conduit axis [a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that inlet tube (42) has an inherent axis] intersects the decomposition conduit axis [a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the decomposition conduit (124) has an inherent axis] (Wei, Figure 17); and the inlet conduit axis is separated from the decomposition conduit axis by an angle that is equal to between 70 degrees and 110 degrees, inclusive [conduit (124) is perpendicular to inlet tube (42), and therefore axis of the two are separated by an angle equal to between 70 and 110 degrees] (Wei, [0088], Figure 17).
Regarding Claim 3
Wei and Golin teach the decomposition chamber of claim 1. Wei further discloses that the endcap (130) is coupled to the decomposition conduit (124) such that the decomposition conduit axis extends through the endcap (130) (Wei, Figure 17).
Regarding Claim 13
Wei and Golin teach the decomposition chamber of claim 1. Golin further teaches that the guide swirl mixer further comprises a gap (62), the gap (62) configured to facilitate flow of exhaust through the guide swirl mixer, the gap (62) located between the first portion (36) and the second portion (38) (Golin, [0060], Figures 2-3).
Regarding Claim 17
Wei and Golin teach the decomposition chamber of claim 1. Golin further teaches that the second portion (38) is contiguous with the first portion (36) (Golin, [0055], Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 19
Wei and Golin teach the decomposition chamber of claim 1. Golin further teaches that the first portion (36) is integrally formed with the second portion (38) (Golin, [0055], Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12, 14-16, 18, and 20 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the decomposition chamber of claim 4, the inclusion of:
“the inlet conduit axis and the decomposition axis extend along a plane, the plane intersecting the guide swirl mixer at two locations” was not found.
In the decomposition chamber of claim 5, the inclusion of:
“the first portion is coupled to the inlet conduit; and the second portion is coupled to the endcap” was not found.
In the decomposition chamber of claim 7, the inclusion of:
“the second portion comprises: a straight segment aligned and contiguous with the first portion; and a curved segment contiguous with the straight segment extending at least partially around the decomposition conduit axis” was not found.
In the decomposition chamber of claim 14, the inclusion of:
“an injector coupled to the endcap configured to provide reductant into the decomposition conduit along an injection axis” was not found.
In the decomposition chamber of claim 18, the inclusion of:
“the first portion is coupled to the second portion” was not found.
In the decomposition chamber of claim 20, the inclusion of:
“the inlet conduit axis does not extend through the decomposition conduit axis” was not found.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alano et al. (US 2021/0404367) – Exhaust system with end cap mixer
Quan et al. (US 10,967,334) – Mixing device
Kurpejovic et al. (US 2020/0047136) – Mixer
Arrowsmith et al. (US 2016/0047288) – Reductant injection in an exhaust system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 02/10/2026
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2/18/2026