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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: distribution device in claim 11.
The distribution device is disclosed to be (23) and described on Page 15, line 35 thru Page 16, line 15 and shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “the chamber encloses more than 25%, or more than 50%, of the circumference of the turbine outlet duct”, which is indefinite since it is unclear what the applicant considers the boundary to be. Does the chamber enclose more than 25% or more than 50%? Dual ranges are confusing as to exactly what the applicant intends the boundaries to be, thereby making the claim indefinite. The Examiner recommends removing “, or more than 50%,” from claim 3 and writing a new claim reciting that “the chamber encloses more than 50% of the circumference of the turbine outlet duct”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CHAWANE (U.S. Patent Publication US 2025/0207524 A1).
Regarding claim 1, CHAWANE discloses: a turbine arrangement for a turbo device (102) of an internal combustion engine (2) (see Figures 1 and 2, Abstract),
wherein the turbine arrangement comprises a turbine housing (114, 101) and a turbine unit (116, 117) arranged to rotate in the turbine housing (see Figure 2 that shows the turbine unit is located in (114), ¶0112),
wherein the turbine housing comprises:
- an exhaust conducting section (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE) comprising a turbine shroud (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE) and a turbine outlet duct (101) (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE),
- a first opening (113) (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE) provided in a wall of the exhaust conducting section (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE, where the first opening is located in the turbine outlet duct of the exhaust conducting section), and
- a chamber (103) (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE) fluidly connected to the exhaust conducting section via the first opening (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE),
and wherein the turbine arrangement comprises a sensor (107) arranged to sense a property of gas inside the chamber (see Figure 2, ¶0109),
wherein the turbine outlet duct comprises a second opening (112) (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE) provided in the wall of the exhaust conducting section (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE), and wherein the chamber is fluidly connected to the exhaust conducting section via the second opening (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE, ¶0110),
and wherein the turbine outlet duct comprises a first and a second end portion (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE), wherein the first end portion is arranged at an interface between the turbine shroud and the turbine outlet duct (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE),
characterized in that the second opening is arranged closer to the first end portion than to the second end portion (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE that shows the second end opening is located at the first end portion and therefore, is arranged closer to the first end portion than to the second end portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
519
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, CHAWANE discloses: the first opening faces the turbine unit (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, CHAWANE discloses: the second opening is provided at a different circumferential position of the exhaust conducting section than the first opening (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE where the second opening is provided at a different circumferential position than the first opening due to the conical shape of the turbine outlet duct places the openings at different circumferential positions).
Regarding claim 7, CHAWANE discloses: the second opening is provided in a wall of the turbine outlet duct at a position adjacent to an interface between the turbine shroud and the turbine outlet duct (see Marked up Figure 2 of CHAWANE).
Regarding claim 8, CHAWANE discloses: the first opening has a geometrical centre line being angled relative to a geometrical centre line of the second opening (see Figure 2 that shows the second opening is straight, while the first opening is shown as an angle, and therefore, the first opening has a geometrical centre line being angled relative to a geometrical centre line of the second opening).
Regarding claim 9, CHAWANE discloses: the turbine arrangement comprises an exhaust additive dosing unit (111) arranged to supply an exhaust additive inside the turbine outlet duct (see Figures 3 and 5, ¶0110).
Regarding claim 12, CHAWANE discloses: the sensor (107) is a NOx sensor configured to sense a NOx content of the gas inside the chamber (¶0066, ¶0072, ¶0112).
Regarding claim 13, CHAWANE discloses: a turbo device for an internal combustion engine (see Figure 1, ¶0050, ¶0106), wherein the turbo device comprises a turbine arrangement according to claim 1, and wherein the turbine unit of the turbine arrangement is configured to be driven by exhaust gas of the internal combustion engine (see Figure 1, ¶0050, ¶0106, ¶0112, claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, CHAWANE discloses: an internal combustion engine comprising a turbo device according to claim 13 (see Figure 1, ¶0050, ¶0106, ¶0112, claim 1).
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAWANE in view of ENGELKE (German Patent Publication DE 10 2018 004 913 A1, a machine translation is provided with the foreign patent in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 10, CHAWANE discloses: the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose the exhaust additive dosing unit is arranged to supply the exhaust additive at a position closer to the first end portion than to the second end portion.
Regarding claim 10, ENGELKE teaches: the exhaust additive dosing unit (20, 30) is arranged to supply the exhaust additive at a position closer to the first end portion than to the second end portion (see Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6, where 6 shows the end of the exhaust additive (30) close to a distribution device (34) that is at the first end portion due to it is closer to the turbine unit).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the exhaust additive dosing unit is arranged to supply the exhaust additive at a position closer to the first end portion than to the second end portion in the turbine arrangement of CHAWANE, in order to provide additional mixing distance for the exhaust additive for a more uniform mixture.
Regarding claim 11, CHAWANE discloses: the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose the turbine arrangement comprises a distribution device arranged on the turbine unit, and wherein the exhaust additive dosing unit is arranged to supply an exhaust additive onto the distribution device.
Regarding claim 11, ENGELKE teaches: the turbine arrangement comprises a distribution device (34) arranged on the turbine unit (see Figure 6 that shows the distribution device (34) is located on the shaft (36) of the turbine (18) and described as being a bowl, which the Examiner considers to be a “cup shape”), and wherein the exhaust additive dosing unit (30) is arranged to supply an exhaust additive onto the distribution device (see Figure 6, Page 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the turbine arrangement comprises a distribution device arranged on the turbine unit, and wherein the exhaust additive dosing unit is arranged to supply an exhaust additive onto the distribution device in the turbine arrangement of CHAWANE, in order to distribute the exhaust additive (see Page 8 of ENGELKE).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAWANE.
Regarding claim 15, CHAWANE discloses the claimed invention, however, does not specifically disclose that a vehicle comprising an internal combustion engine according to claim 14, however, it would be obvious. CHAWANE does discloses in the background of invention having “vehicle” emission standards for internal combustion engines (¶0004) and that failure of the exhaust gas sensors are trying to be avoided due to the associated “vehicle” downtime (¶0011).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have CHAWANE contain an internal combustion engine of claim 14 in a vehicle, since utilizing an internal combustion engine with a turbo device in a vehicle is known (see background of invention of CHAWANE ¶0004 and ¶0011). Utilizing known components (i.e. turbo device) in a known system (i.e. a vehicle) requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. the ability to have a more reliable sensor and improved engine and exhaust system performance by utilizing the improvement of CHAWANE in an internal combustion engine that is in a vehicle system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746