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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mito et al. (JP 2007-009810) in view of Fried et al. (US 2022/0290596).
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]).
Mito discloses the claimed invention except:
stopping the engine after the excess air ratio of the engine is controlled to the target value; and closing the exhaust passage at a downstream side of the NOx storage-reduction catalyst after stopping the engine.
Fried et al. (Fried) discloses an exhaust gas catalyst system with exhaust flow and temperature control. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]). Fried discloses stopping the engine; and closing the exhaust passage at a downstream side of the NOx storage-reduction catalyst after stopping the engine. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0053], [0064]-[0065], & [0080]).
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 system of Fried to close off the catalyst after engine shutdown, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas systems with exhaust flow temperature control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the system of Fried would have maintained the temperature of the catalyst Mito at operating temperature during shutdown periods improving overall emissions reduction of the system despite transient operation. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
The Examiner notes that the claim recitations merely require that the step of ‘stopping the engine’ occurs after the excess air ratio is controlled to the target value and that the exhaust passage is closed after the stoppage of the engine but do not preclude the stoppage occurring in different operating conditions or periods. Accordingly, stoppage of an engine occurs during normal operation and such stoppage will occur after a regeneration has concluded.
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
The Mito-Fried combination 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)
The Mito-Fried combination 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)
The Mito-Fried combination 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)
The Mito-Fried combination 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 8
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
The Mito-Fried combination discloses:
wherein an outlet of the exhaust passage is closed with a plug. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0053], [0064]-[0065], & [0080]).
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 system of Fried to close off the catalyst after engine shutdown, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas systems with exhaust flow temperature control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the system of Fried would have maintained the temperature of the catalyst Mito at operating temperature during shutdown periods improving overall emissions reduction of the system despite transient operation. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
The Examiner notes that downstream valve plugs the exhaust outlet to allow for recirculation in the Mito-Fried combination.
In Reference to Claim 9
(See Mito, Figures 1-2)
The Mito-Fried combination discloses:
wherein closing the exhaust passage comprises closing an on-off valve provided on the downstream side of the NOx storage-reduction catalyst in the exhaust passage. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0053], [0064]-[0065], & [0080]).
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 system of Fried to close off the catalyst after engine shutdown, as both references are directed towards exhaust gas systems with exhaust flow temperature control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the system of Fried would have maintained the temperature of the catalyst Mito at operating temperature during shutdown periods improving overall emissions reduction of the system despite transient operation. (See Fried, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
The Examiner notes that downstream valve plugs the exhaust outlet to allow for recirculation in the Mito-Fried combination.
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 Fried et al. (US 2022/0290596), further 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “further comprising: maintaining the exhaust passage closed for a predetermined period such that the sulfur components stored in the NOx storage-reduction catalyst are removed while the engine is stopped.”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wittmann and Eckhoff show exhaust devices within the general state of the art of invention.
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
Prosecution Insights