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 1-13, 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "Exhaust gas aftertreatment system" in line 1 which should be changed to --An exhaust gas aftertreatment system--.
Furthermore, claims 2-13 and 16-20 also recite "exhaust gas aftertreatment system" in line 1 which should be changed to --the exhaust gas aftertreatment system--.
Claims 4 and 14 end in “,.” In which the comma “,” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “wherein at least one ammonia slip catalyst comprises ruthenium and/or ruthenium mixture. However, claim 13 or the independent claim 1 do not clearly claim the ammonia slip catalyst. As such, it cannot be ascertained whether the catalyst is a part of the system or if it mere environment. If it is mere environment, then the structure of the AMOX catalyst does not provide any additional structural limitation to the claim. If AMOX catalyst is part of the system, then it should be claimed positively, i.e. --wherein the system further comprises at least one ammonia slip that comprises ruthenium and/or ruthenium mixture--.
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) 1-8, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0162971 to Montgomery.
Regarding claim 1, Montgomery discloses an exhaust gas aftertreatment system for an ammonia fueled internal combustion engine ([15]) comprising:
a passive SCR catalyst system (110, fig. 1, 210, fig. 2; [19]) arranged downstream of the engine, the passive SCR catalyst system comprising an SCR catalyst and no reductant injection system (figs. 1-2), and
an active SCR catalyst system (124, fig. 1; 224, fig. 2; [25-28]) arranged downstream of the passive SCR catalyst system, the active SCR catalyst system comprising an SCR catalyst, a first NOx sensor (118, fig. 1; 218, fig. 2) and a reductant injection system (126, fig. 1; 226, fig. 2), the reductant injection system comprising a reductant injector (128, fig. 1; 228, fig. 2), the and a controller (134, fig. 1; 234, fig. 2) controlling reductant injection based on an NOx concentration measured by the first NOx sensor ([22]-[27]).
Regarding claim 2, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the SCR catalyst of the passive SCR catalyst system is arranged downstream of an engine exhaust manifold as the first exhaust gas aftertreatment component acting on the NH3 and/or NOx content of the exhaust gas (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the passive SCR catalyst system is arranged downstream of an engine exhaust manifold such that NH3 slippage in the exhaust gas of the engine is used to reduce NOx contained in the exhaust gas of the engine in the SCR catalyst of the passive SCR catalyst system (figs. 1-2; operation of the engine and the passive SCR).
Regarding claim 4, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein an ammonia slip catalyst (114, fig. 1; [214, fig. 2; [21]) is provided downstream of the SCR catalyst of the passive SCR catalyst system and upstream of the active SCR catalyst system.
Regarding claim 5, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 4, wherein the ammonia slip catalyst is arranged such that NH3 still contained in the exhaust gas exiting SCR catalyst of the passive SCR catalyst system is converted into NOx and/or N2 ([21]; function of the catalyst).
Regarding claim 6, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein a second ammonia slip catalyst is arranged downstream of the SCR catalyst of the active SCR catalyst system ([17], the system further comprises an ammonia slip catalyst (ASC). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since one oxidation catalyst is already placed between first and second SCRs (110 and 124, fig. 1) to oxidize ammonia slipping from the first SCR catalyst (110, fig. 1), the further ASC will be downstream of the second SCR to oxidize the slipping ammonia from the second SCR catalyst (124, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to feedback control the reductant injection of the active SCR catalyst system using a closed loop control strategy based on the NOx concentration measured by a second NOx sensor (120, fig. 1; 220, fig. 2; [27]-[30]) and/or the NH3 concentration measured by an NH3 sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 7, wherein the second NOx sensor and/or the NH3 sensor is arranged downstream of the active SCR catalyst system (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1, wherein the reductant used by the reductant injection system of the active SCR catalyst system is ammonia ([25]).
Regarding claim 14, Montgomery discloses an ammonia fueled internal combustion engine (102, fig. 1; 202, fig. 2; [15]) comprising an exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Montgomery discloses a method for operating an ammonia fueled internal combustion engine of claim 14, the method comprising:
- operating the engine with ammonia as a fuel ([15]),
- using NH3 slippage in the exhaust gas of the engine to reduce NOx contained in the exhaust gas of the engine in the SCR catalyst of the passive SCR catalyst system ([19]-[20]);
- measuring NOx content (via sensor 118, fig. 1; 218, fig. 2; [22]) in the exhaust gas downstream of the passive SCR catalyst system,
- controlling (via controller 134, 234, figs. 1-2; [22]-[27]) reductant injection into the exhaust gas stream upstream of the SCR catalyst of the active SCR catalyst system based on the NOx content and
- reducing NOx contained in the exhaust gas with the reductant in the SCR catalyst of the active SCR catalyst system ([22]-[27]).
Regarding claim 16, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 2, wherein the SCR catalyst of the passive SCR catalyst system is arranged as the first exhaust gas aftertreatment component (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 4, wherein the ammonia slip catalyst is arranged upstream of the first NOx sensor of the active SCR catalyst system (figs. 1-2; 114 is upstream of 118).
Regarding claim 18, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 8, wherein the controller receives a temperature value of the exhaust gas measured by a temperature sensor and/or a first NOx value (via sensor 118 or 218 figs. 1-2; [22][27]) measured by the first NOx sensor arranged downstream of the passive SCR catalyst system and upstream of the reductant injector of the active SCR catalyst system.
Regarding claim 19, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 13, wherein an ammonia tank (130, fig. 1; 230, fig. 2) and ammonia supply lines providing ammonia for operating the internal combustion engine and for operating the reductant injection system are provided ([26]).
Regarding claim 20, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 14, wherein the ammonia fueled internal combustion engine is configured to burn ammonia as a single fuel and/or ammonia in combination with a combustion promoter ([15]).
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2024/012792 to Peitz et al (Peitz).
Regarding claim 9, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose which Peitz discloses:
at least one turbocharger ([32]), wherein the active SCR catalyst system is arranged downstream of the turbocharger in the exhaust gas stream ([32]-[34]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the turbocharger of Peitz with the device of Montgomery so as to makes it possible to at least partially utilize the thermal energy contained in the exhaust gas flow ([32]; Peitz)
Regarding claim 10, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 9, wherein the passive SCR catalyst system is arranged upstream or downstream of the at least one turbocharger ([32]-[34]; Peitz).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0011065 to Knuth.
Regarding claim 11, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the passive SCR catalyst system is between 2 to 5 times bigger than the active SCR catalyst system.
However, Knuth discloses in [10] that the second SCR converter is considerably smaller than the first SCR converter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the passive SCR catalyst system that is bigger than the active SCR catalyst system so as to keep the overcall system to a reasonable size (10]; Knuth).
Furthermore, Knuth discloses in [10] that the NOx conversion in the second SCR converter is considerably less than at the first SCR converter, a considerably smaller volume will be sufficient. As such, the sizes of the SCR systems is a result effective variable and it is possible depending on the size of the system to have a first SCR system that is 2 to 5 times the size of the second SCR system
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the passive SCR catalyst system that is between 2 to 5 times bigger than the active SCR catalyst system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0273393 to Devarakonda et al. (Devarakonda).
Regarding claim 12, Montgomery discloses the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose which Devarakonda discloses:
at least one ammonia slip catalyst (54, fig. 1) comprises ruthenium and/or a ruthenium mixture ([26]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have at least one ammonia slip catalyst (54, fig. 1) comprises ruthenium and/or a ruthenium mixture as taught by Devarakonda in the device of Montgomery so that the ammonia slip catalyst 54 can oxidize (e.g., convert) any number of materials in the exhaust stream 14 ([25]; Devarakonda).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,241,398 to Haas et al.
US 11,890,575 to Sung et al.
US 8,646,259 to Gonze et al.
US 2022/0154620 to Kumamoto et al.
US 2022/0105493 to Liu et al.
US 2021/0387145 to Maurer et al.
US 2019/0301334 to Arulraj et al.
US 2013/0042597 to Gonze et al.
US 2007/0012032 to Hu
All references above describe general state of art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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.
/DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746