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 § 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) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mito et al. (JP 2007-009810).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
Mito et al. (Mito) discloses:
A desulfurization method comprising:
operating an engine (E) to warm up an NOx storage-reduction catalyst (22) provided in an exhaust passage (3) coupled to the engine (E) (See Mito, Paragraphs [0036]-[0038] & [0053]);
controlling the engine (E) so that an excess air ratio of the engine (E) becomes a target value that is lower than 1 when a temperature of the NOx storage-reduction catalyst (22) reaches a temperature at which the NOx storage-reduction catalyst (22) is capable of reducing sulfur components stored in the NOx storage-reduction catalyst (22) (See Mito, Paragraphs [0055]-[0057]);
stopping the engine (E); and
closing the exhaust passage (3) at a downstream side of the NOx storage-reduction catalyst (22). (See Mito, Paragraphs [0053] & [0057]).
The Examiner notes that the steps are not required to be performed in a specified order. Accordingly, it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that “stopping the engine” is at least performed during refueling, servicing, end of desired use, etc.
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
Mito discloses:
wherein the target value of the excess air ratio is determined based on an amount of sulfur components stored in the NOx storage-reduction catalyst (22). (See Mito, Paragraph [0049]).
The Examiner notes that the target value is changed from its current value in accordance with exceeding an estimated amount of sulfur components based on travel distance or fuel consumption.
In Reference to Claim 3
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
Mito discloses:
wherein the target value of the excess air ratio is determined based on, in addition to the amount of sulfur components stored in the NOx storage-reduction catalyst, an amount of nitrogen oxides stored in the NOx storage-reduction catalyst. (See Mito, Paragraphs [0046]-[0049]).
The Examiner notes that the target value is changed from its current value in accordance with a simultaneous NOx and SOx purge control and both exceeding an estimated amount of sulfur components and NOx components based on travel distance, fuel consumption, and NOx concentration.
In Reference to Claim 6
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
Mito discloses:
wherein the engine (E) is provided in a vehicle, and the desulfurization method is performed while the vehicle is stopped. (See Mito, Paragraph [0051]).
In Reference to Claim 7
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
Mito discloses:
wherein the engine (E) is provided in a vehicle, and the desulfurization method is performed while the vehicle is stopped. (See Mito, Paragraph [0051]).
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mito et al. (JP 2007-009810) in view of Surnilla et al. (US 2005/0119822).
In Reference to Claim 4
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
Mito discloses:
wherein the warming up the NOx storage-reduction catalyst (22). (See Mito, Paragraph [0053]).
Mito discloses the claimed invention except:
warming up the NOx storage-reduction catalyst in a state in which the engine is controlled so that the excess air ratio of the engine becomes 1.
Surnilla et al. (Surnilla) discloses a desulfurization process of a catalyst. (See Surnilla, Paragraph [0126]). Surnilla discloses a warmup process to reach a desulfurization temperature utilizing an air-fuel oscillation that becomes 1. (See Surnilla, Figure 16, Paragraph [0127]).
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 temperature increasing strategy of Surnilla to heat the catalyst of Mito to desulfurization temperature, as both references are directed towards desulfurization of a catalyst. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the heating strategy of Surnilla would have allowed for improved desulfsation performance and protected the catalyst from thermal damage. (See Surnilla, Paragraphs [0122] & [0127]).
In Reference to Claim 5
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
Mito discloses:
wherein the warming up the NOx storage-reduction catalyst (22). (See Mito, Paragraph [0053]).
Mito discloses the claimed invention except:
warming up the NOx storage-reduction catalyst in a state in which the engine is controlled so that the excess air ratio of the engine becomes 1.
Surnilla et al. (Surnilla) discloses a desulfurization process of a catalyst. (See Surnilla, Paragraph [0126]). Surnilla discloses a warmup process to reach a desulfurization temperature utilizing an air-fuel oscillation that becomes 1. (See Surnilla, Figure 16, Paragraph [0127]).
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 temperature increasing strategy of Surnilla to heat the catalyst of Mito to desulfurization temperature, as both references are directed towards desulfurization of a catalyst. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the heating strategy of Surnilla would have allowed for improved desulfsation performance and protected the catalyst from thermal damage. (See Surnilla, Paragraphs [0122] & [0127]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagaoka, Sato, Suzuki, Kasaya, Wakamoto, and Oda show sulfur regeneration devices within the general state of the art of invention.
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