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
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 2 should read in part “wherein an exothermic”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahodwala et al. (US 10,480,369).
In Reference to Claim 11
(See Dahodwala, Figure 4)
Dahodwala et al. (Daho) discloses:
An exhaust-gas aftertreatment system (10) configured to treat an exhaust-gas stream from combustion in an internal combustion engine (100), the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system (10) comprising:
a first dosing device (26) configured to add a first additive to the exhaust-gas stream (See Daho, Column 4, Line 59);
a heating device (30) arranged downstream of the first dosing device (26) and configured to introduce thermal energy to the exhaust-gas stream (See Daho, Column 5, Lines 7-21); and
an oxidation catalyst (12) downstream of the heating device (30) and configured to oxidize nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen compounds contained in the exhaust-gas stream (See Daho, Column 4, Lines 25-27),
wherein the heating device (30) is an electric heater connected directly upstream of the oxidation catalyst (12) or the heating device (30) is an electrically heatable oxidation catalyst. (See Daho, Column 5, Lines 7-21).
In Reference to Claim 12
(See Dahodwala, Figure 4)
Daho discloses:
a second dosing device (16) connected downstream of the oxidation catalyst (12) and configured to supply a second additive to the exhaust gas stream. (See Daho, Column 4, Lines 35-36).
In Reference to Claim 13
(See Dahodwala, Figure 4)
Daho discloses:
a first selective reduction catalyst (20) arranged after the second dosing device (16). (See Daho, Column 4, Lines 39-42).
In Reference to Claim 14
(See Dahodwala, Figure 4)
Daho discloses:
a first slip catalyst (24), configured to oxidize additive residues or to support the first selective reduction catalyst (20), is arranged after the first selective reduction catalyst (20). (See Daho, Column 4, Lines 56-61).
In Reference to Claim 15
(See Dahodwala, Figure 4)
Daho discloses:
wherein the second dosing device (16) is configured to supply the second additive as a function of a diesel particulate filter (18) temperature. (See Daho, Column 4, Lines 35-61).
Daho discloses all of the structural limitations of claim 15, as best understood by Examiner. As all of the structural limitations are disclosed, “wherein the second dosing device is configured to supply the second additive as a function of a diesel particulate filter temperature” is capable of being executed. The recitation of the intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention as the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As Daho is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed invention, and the recitation of the intended use does not result in a structural difference, Daho discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Claim(s) 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martz et al. (US 2022/0397048).
In Reference to Claim 11
(See Martz, Figures 1 and 5B)
Martz et al. (Martz) discloses:
An exhaust-gas aftertreatment system (550) configured to treat an exhaust-gas stream from combustion in an internal combustion engine (10), the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system (550) comprising:
a first dosing device (524) configured to add a first additive to the exhaust-gas stream (See Martz, Paragraph [0064]);
a heating device (522) arranged downstream of the first dosing device (524) and configured to introduce thermal energy to the exhaust-gas stream (See Martz, Paragraph [0064]); and
an oxidation catalyst (520) downstream of the heating device (522) and configured to oxidize nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen compounds contained in the exhaust-gas stream (See Martz, Paragraph [0064]),
wherein the heating device (522) is an electric heater connected directly upstream of the oxidation catalyst (520) or the heating device (522) is an electrically heatable oxidation catalyst. (See Martz, Paragraph [0064]).
In Reference to Claim 12
(See Martz, Figures 1 and 5B)
Martz discloses:
a second dosing device (570) connected downstream of the oxidation catalyst (520) and configured to supply a second additive to the exhaust gas stream. (See Martz, Paragraph [0069]).
In Reference to Claim 13
(See Martz, Figures 1 and 5B)
Martz discloses:
a first selective reduction catalyst (574) arranged after the second dosing device (570). (See Martz, Paragraph [0069]).
In Reference to Claim 14
(See Martz, Figures 1 and 5B)
Martz discloses:
a first slip catalyst (576), configured to oxidize additive residues or to support the first selective reduction catalyst (574), is arranged after the first selective reduction catalyst (574). (See Martz, Paragraph [0069]).
In Reference to Claim 15
(See Martz, Figures 1 and 5B)
Martz discloses:
wherein the second dosing device (570) is configured to supply the second additive as a function of a diesel particulate filter (566) temperature. (See Martz, Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Martz discloses all of the structural limitations of claim 15, as best understood by Examiner. As all of the structural limitations are disclosed, “wherein the second dosing device is configured to supply the second additive as a function of a diesel particulate filter temperature” is capable of being executed. The recitation of the intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention as the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As Martz is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed invention, and the recitation of the intended use does not result in a structural difference, Martz discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
In Reference to Claim 16
(See Martz, Figures 1 and 5B)
Martz discloses:
a particle filter (566) configured to retain or oxidize soot particles and connected downstream of the first slip catalyst (576). (See Martz, Paragraphs [0068]-0069]).
In Reference to Claim 18
(See Martz, Figures 1 and 5B)
Martz discloses:
a third dosing device (540) connected downstream of the particle filter (566) and configured to supply a third additive to the exhaust gas stream. (See Martz, Paragraph [0067]).
In Reference to Claim 19
(See Martz, Figures 1 and 5B)
Martz discloses:
a second selective reduction catalyst (544) arranged after the third dosing device (540). (See Martz, Paragraph [0067]).
In Reference to Claim 20
(See Martz, Figures 1 and 5B)
Martz discloses:
a second slip catalyst (548) configured to oxidize additive residues or to support the first selective reduction catalyst (574) and arranged after the second selective reduction catalyst (544). (See Martz, Paragraphs [0067]-[0069]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martz et al. (US 2022/0397048) in view of Bandl-Konrad et al. (US 2011/0005204).
In Reference to Claim 17
Martz et al. discloses the claimed invention except:
Wherein the particle filter includes an oxidation layer, wherein a exothermic reaction leads to soot regeneration or desulphurization of subsequent catalysts.
Bandl-Konrad et al. (Bandl) discloses an exhaust aftertreatment system. (See Bandl, Abstract). Bandl discloses applying an oxidation layer (DOC coating) to the particle filter. (See Bandl, Paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have catalytically coated the particle filter of Martz, as both references are directed towards exhaust treatment systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying a catalytic coating to the particle filter would have allowed for removal of the DOC immediately upstream of the particle filter in Martz leading to space and cost benefits. (See Bandl, Paragraph [0062]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bahrami, Lambert, Magnusson, Hadl, Chen, Goffe, Katare, Punde, and Nilsson show exhaust gas system arrangements within the general state of the art of invention.
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