DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claims 1 – 18 are entitled to a priority date of February 27, 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bypass pipe comprising the inactive region, the bypass pipe being separated from the active region, and wherein the bypass pipe and the active region are eccentric, as recited in Claims 7, 8, and 15, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, Line 5 recites a catalytic reduction device. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because a catalytic reduction device was already introduced in Line 2 of Claim 1, making it unclear whether the instance in Line 5 requires a new catalytic reduction device or merely refers to the same one previously introduced. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as referring to the same catalytic reduction device. Examiner suggests amending to the catalytic reduction device.
Claim 9, Line 3 recites the ratio. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because the ratio lacks antecedent basis since a ratio has not yet been established. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting a ratio and examiner suggests amending accordingly.
Claim 9, Line 5 recites an amount of urea, then in Line 7 recites reduces the amount of urea or ammonia. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because an amount of urea or ammonia was already introduced in Claim 1, making it unclear whether the instance in Claim 9 refers to the same quantity or a different quantity. Examiner suggests amending to …control the urea injector to adjust [[an]] the amount of urea or ammonia based on the calculated levels of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device to reduce the amount of urea or ammonia at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device.
Claim 10, Line 8 recites an amount of urea, then in Line 10 recites reduces the amount of urea or ammonia. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because an amount of urea or ammonia was already introduced in Claim 1, making it unclear whether the instance in Claim 10 refers to the same quantity or a different quantity. Examiner suggests amending to …control the urea injector to adjust [[an]] the amount of urea or ammonia based on the calculated levels of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device to reduce the amount of urea or ammonia at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device.
Claim 13, Line 4 recites the ratio. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because the ratio lacks antecedent basis since a ratio has not yet been established. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting a ratio and examiner suggests amending accordingly.
Claims 2 – 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on Claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 6 – 8, 10 – 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofoli et al. (hereafter “Ofoli” – US 2009/0272102) in view of Gueslin et al. (hereafter “Gueslin” – FR 3054600).
With regards to Claims 1, 12, and 18:
Ofoli discloses an exhaust aftertreatment system for a vehicle, method thereof, and processing circuitry configured to execute the method, comprising:
a catalytic reduction device (SCR 152, Figure 2);
at least one urea injector (reductant injector 192, Figure 2, Paragraph 56) upstream of the catalytic reduction device; and
an ammonia slip catalyst device (AMOX 160, Figure 2), the ammonia slip catalyst device comprising:
an inlet (see Figure 2, side closer to temperature sensor 124E) for receiving exhaust gas from [the] catalytic reduction device, and an outlet (see Figure 2, side closer to temperature sensor 1224F) for directing outlet gas towards an exhaust outlet of the exhaust aftertreatment system, a flow direction of the ammonia slip catalyst device being from the inlet to the outlet (as seen in Figure 2);
the exhaust aftertreatment system further comprising:
a sensor (NH3 sensor 166C) arranged at the outlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device, the sensor being configured to measure a level of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the outlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device (see location of sensor 166C downstream of AMOX 160); and
processing circuitry (controller 130) configured to:
determine the levels of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device based on the measured levels of ammonia (see Figure 11, the data from NH3 sensor 166C is used in module 354 to determine current NH3 slip parameter 372, see also Paragraph 132: “the amount of NH3 entering the AMOX catalyst 160 can be set to the current NH3 slip 372”); and
control the urea injector to adjust an amount of urea or ammonia upstream of the catalytic reduction device based on the calculated levels of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device to reduce the amount of urea or ammonia at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device (see Figure 15, the calculated NH3 slip 372 is used as an input in the reductant modifier module 390 to determine a reductant modifier requirement parameter 342, which is used, as per step 816 in Figure 17, to adjust the injection amount in step 822).
Ofoli does not explicitly disclose the ammonia slip catalyst comprising an active region having an inlet and an outlet, the active region comprising a catalyst coating that is configured to reduce an amount of ammonia in the received exhaust gas by oxidation; and an inactive region having an inlet and an outlet, the inactive region being without catalyst coating, whereby the inactive region is configured to allow ammonia in the received exhaust gas to pass through the ammonia slip catalyst device without ammonia oxidation such that the concentration of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the outlet of the inactive region is substantially the same as the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device. Gueslin teaches a vehicle comprising an exhaust line (8) having an upstream end (at NOx trap 4) and a downstream end (at ammonia slip catalyst 2). The slip catalyst further comprises a bypass line (7) such that the catalyst comprises an active region having an inlet and an outlet (coinciding with the actual slip catalyst itself, used to eliminate excess NH3 not used in the SCR), the active region comprising a catalyst coating that is configured to reduce an amount of ammonia in the received exhaust gas by oxidation (see Paragraph 10); and an inactive region (bypass line 7) having an inlet and an outlet (see Figure 1), the inactive region being without catalyst coating, whereby the inactive region is configured to allow ammonia in the received exhaust gas to pass through the ammonia slip catalyst device without ammonia oxidation such that the concentration of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the outlet of the inactive region is substantially the same as the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device (the line allows bypassing of the slip catalyst, thus exhaust is not subjected to a catalyst and exits the bypass substantially the same composition as it entered, see Paragraphs 17 – 21). Gueslin teaches that this bypass protects the slip catalyst from “aging prematurely when it actually has no active role given the low production of excess NH3 or NH3 leakage” (Paragraph 13) and “damaged when exposed to high temperatures” (Paragraph 12). Gueslin goes on to teach that the bypass may be “permanent”, meaning the bypass line stays open and “active until at least one threshold value is reached” (Paragraph 19). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, the addition of a bypass line bypassing the AMOX of Ofoli would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to yield the predictable benefits described above, notably the prevention of damage and excess wear to the AMOX, thus resulting in the active and inactive regions recited.
With regards to Claim 6:
The Ofoli modification of Claim 1 does not explicitly teach the area of non-coated surfaces in the inactive region is less than 5% of the total area of surfaces in the active and inactive regions. However, as per MPEP 2144.05, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation,”, see In re Aller. Applicant has not presented any evidence of criticality to the recited range of area for the inactive region. Gueslin (Figure 1) teaches a valve (11) which controls flow to the bypass channel. As per Paragraph 51 of Gueslin, the valve may be open, closed, or some intermediate position. A closed valve would yield an equivalent area of 0% of the total surface area of the active and inactive region since no exhaust would flow through the bypass channel. Given the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize flow through the bypass channel of Ofoli as modified by Gueslin based on desired exhaust outlet conditions and modify the equivalent area of exposure accordingly.
With regards to Claims 7 and 15:
The Ofoli modification of Claim 1 teaches a bypass pipe (bypass channel 7, Figure 1 of Gueslin) comprising the inactive region, the bypass pipe being separated from the active region (as shown in Figure 1 of Gueslin, see also Paragraphs 36 – 38).
With regards to Claim 8:
The Ofoli modification of Claim 1 teaches the bypass pipe and the active region are eccentric (as shown in Figure 1 of Gueslin, see also Paragraphs 36 – 38).
With regards to Claims 10 and 14:
The Ofoli modification of Claim 1 teaches the sensor being arranged at an outlet of the inactive region of the ammonia slip catalyst device, the sensor being configured to measure a level of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the outlet of the inactive region of the ammonia slip catalyst device (as per Paragraph 37 of Gueslin, the bypass channel 7 joins the exhaust line 8 after bypassing the ammonia slip catalyst 2 – additionally, Ofoli shows the NH3 sensor 166C at the outlet of the AMOX catalyst, as such, the sensor is located at an outlet of the bypass channel after modification); and the processing circuitry being configured to: determine the levels of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device based on the measured levels of ammonia (see Figure 11, the data from NH3 sensor 166C is used in module 354 to determine current NH3 slip parameter 372, see also Paragraph 132: “the amount of NH3 entering the AMOX catalyst 160 can be set to the current NH3 slip 372”); and control the urea injector to adjust an amount of urea based on the determined levels of ammonia in the exhaust gas at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device to reduce the amount of urea or ammonia at the inlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device (see Figure 15, the calculated NH3 slip 372 is used as an input in the reductant modifier module 390 to determine a reductant modifier requirement parameter 342, which is used, as per step 816 in Figure 17, to adjust the injection amount in step 822).
With regards to Claims 11 and 17:
The Ofoli modification of Claim 1 teaches the exhaust aftertreatment system and a controller (130, Figure 1 of Ofoli), but does not explicitly teach it as part of a vehicle. Ofoli teaches an internal combustion engine. Gueslin teaches a similar exhaust aftertreatment system for a vehicle (see Paragraph 1 of Gueslin), and further comprising a control unit on board the vehicle (Paragraph 49) and performing the bypassing adjustment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the engine of Ofoli on a vehicle with an on-board controller as shown in Gueslin in order to reduce pollution caused by vehicles and meet emissions regulations (see also Paragraph 2 of Ofoli).
Claims 2 – 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofoli et al. (hereafter “Ofoli” – US 2009/0272102) in view of Gueslin et al. (hereafter “Gueslin” – FR 3054600), further in view of Gruden et al. (hereafter “Gruden” – DE 3930380).
With regards to Claims 2 and 16:
The Ofoli modification of Claims 1 and 12 does not explicitly teach the inactive region is surrounded by the active region. However, other configurations of catalyst bypasses are known in the art. Gruden (Figure 2) teaches a catalytic reduction device (6) including an active region (annular catalyst material 9) and an inactive region (central bypass channel 8), such that the inactive region is surrounded by the active region (see Figure 2, Paragraph 10). Compared to an exterior bypass, the bypass channel shown in Gruden minimizes space usage and has a common shell (12) protecting both the active and inactive regions. Given the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ofoli as modified in Claim 1 by arranging the bypass in a central channel of the AMOX, as shown in Gruden, in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claims 3 and 4:
The Ofoli modification of Claim 2 teaches the inlets and outlets of the active region and the inactive region are sub-portions of the inlet and outlet of the ammonia slip catalyst device (see Figure 2 of Gruden, inlets of bypass channel 8 and catalyst region 9 are sub-portions of inlet to whole catalyst device 6, same for outlets).
With regards to Claim 5:
The Ofoli modification of Claim 2 teaches the inactive region and the active region are concentric (see Figure 2, Paragraph 10 of Gruden).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additional References
Please see attached PTO-892 form for additional references which are made of record but not relied upon for the current grounds of rejection.
Smits (US 2022/0056830) – see Figure 1, NH3 sensor downstream of ASC used to determine ammonia slip exiting SCR, and control metering unit injecting urea/ammonia upstream of an SCR.
Dahl (SE 1000465) – see Proposal 2, NOx sensor downstream of clean up catalyst acting as an NH3 sensor to determine ammonia slip exiting SCR.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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 on (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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Thursday, February 19, 2026