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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiera et al (US 2023/0101071).
Regarding claim 1, Chiera discloses an ammonia mixed combustion engine device operated by a main fuel containing ammonia and a hydrocarbon-based auxiliary fuel being combusted (Title, Fig. 1, and ¶ [0026], the primary fuel is ammonia and makes use of an auxiliary fuel of diesel for combustion initiation and enhancement)
wherein at least one of: an air excess ratio of an air-fuel mixture of the main fuel and air and an injection timing of the auxiliary fuel is controlled so that a proportion of exhausted unburned ammonia and nitrogen oxides contained in an exhaust gas achieves a predetermined proportion (¶ [0025], the system is attempting to regulate the burning of fuel to reduce NOx and unburned ammonia and wherein as per ¶ [0066] to [0067], the injection timing of the diesel fuel is altered in order to reduce the amount of NH3/NOx emissions).
Regarding claim 6, Chiera discloses the engine device according to claim 1, comprising: a selective reduction catalyst for reducing the nitrogen oxides contained in the exhaust gas by a reducing agent gas (¶ [0102], the system contains a catalyst to reduce NOx); and an ammonia adsorption catalyst for absorbing the unburned ammonia contained in the exhaust gas (¶ [0103], the system contains an ammonia slip catalyst).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiera in view of Schiltz et al (US 2008/0308056).
Regarding claims 2-5, Chiera discloses the ammonia mixed combustion engine device operated by a main fuel containing ammonia and a hydrocarbon-based auxiliary fuel being combusted, but fails to disclose wherein hydrogen is mixed with the ammonia to create the main fuel, and a proportion of the mixed ammonia and hydrogen in the main fuel is controlled so that a proportion of exhausted unburned ammonia and nitrogen oxides contained in an exhaust gas achieves a predetermined proportion.
Chiera, for its part, discloses that Hydrogen may be used as a fuel in its system (¶ [0035], the system may use ammonia, hydrogen, methane, or any other gaseous fuel) and wherein the fuel systems injection timings are optimized (¶ [0066] and [0067]), but fails to disclose the fuel being a mixture of both ammonia and hydrogen, wherein the system modifies the proportion of the two gasses to alter the unburned ammonia and NOx emissions.
Schiltz discloses a hydrogen and ammonia fueled engine (title), wherein the system is attempting to eliminate unwanted emissions such as CO2 (¶ [0002]) and NOx (¶ [0013]), wherein the proportion NH3/H2 ratio is optimized based on engine temperature to reduce the unwanted emissions (¶ [0013]). The addition of hydrogen mixture with ammonia aiding in engine start and emission reductions (¶ [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Chiera such that its fuel system includes an ammonia and hydrogen mixture because this would have allowed for an improvement in engine start procedures and emissions reduction, wherein the ratio of the mixture is optimized to reduce unwanted emissions – already being contemplated and achieved in Chiera to reduce NOx and unburned NH3.
Regarding claim 7, Chiera discloses the engine device according to claim 2, wherein the ammonia is reformed to create the hydrogen (¶ [0103], the catalyst produces reformed hydrogen gas as a product).
Regarding claims 8-9, Chiera discloses the engine device according to claim 3, wherein a proportion of the exhausted nitrogen oxides and a proportion of the exhausted unburned ammonia is controlled to achieve the predetermined proportion by performing at least one of increasing an EGR ratio (Chiera discloses making use of EGR gasses within its system (¶ [0083] and wherein the EGR gas ratio is used to modify the emissions of the engine (the emissions, as previously discussed, being NOx and unburned NH3) as per ¶ [0092] to [0093]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/081,546 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim scope of claim 1 of the copending application entirely encompasses that of claim 1 of the instant invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A LATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/KEVIN A LATHERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights