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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-17 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-19 of U. S. Patent Number 12,291,987 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: the application claims are merely broader than the patent claims.
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. See 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); and, 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
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)(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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Wang) (Patent/Publication Number US 2022/0034245).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12, Wang discloses a method of treating an exhaust stream (100) flowing through an exhaust line housing (101, 301) in a downstream direction from an upstream location of the exhaust line housing to a downstream location, comprising: flowing the exhaust stream through a first particulate filter (140, 140b); flowing the exhaust stream through an SCR unit (150) disposed downstream of the first particulate filter after flowing the exhaust stream through the first particulate filter (140, 140b); and flowing the exhaust stream through a second particulate filter (142, 142b) downstream of the SCR unit after flowing the exhaust stream through the SCR unit, the first particulate filter, the SCR unit, and the second particulate filter arranged serially in the exhaust line housing (e.g. See Paragraphs [0063] The first filter 140 is disposed upstream of the SCR system 150 and the second filter 142 is disposed downstream of the first filter 140, for example, downstream of the SCR system 150 as shown in FIG. 3A. For example, insertion of the reductant into the SCR system 150 may result in significant amount of solid particles (e.g., reductant particles, soot, ash, etc.) being present in the exhaust gas downstream of the SCR system 150, and positioning the second filter 142 downstream of the SCR system 150 may allow capture of such particles downstream of the SCR system 150. .....) (e.g. See Figures 3A-3B; Paragraphs [0059-0068]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang further discloses wherein the exhaust stream is mixed with a reducing agent (110, 120) in the SCR unit (150) and the mixture of the exhaust stream and the reducing agent is flowed through a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (e.g. See Paragraphs [0039, 0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang further discloses wherein the exhaust stream is exposed to an oxidation catalyst (130) prior to entering the first particulate filter (140, 140b) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0033, 0052-0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang further discloses wherein the oxidation catalyst comprises a diesel oxidation catalyst (e.g. See Paragraphs [0033] In some embodiments, the aftertreatment system 100 may also include an oxidation catalyst 130 (e.g., a diesel oxidation catalyst) disposed upstream of the first filter 140, for example, in the housing 101. The oxidation catalyst 130 may be configured to oxidize unburnt hydrocarbons and/or carbon monoxide included in the exhaust gas to CO2.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0028, 0033, 0038]).
Regarding claims 5, 14, Wang further discloses wherein the exhaust stream entering the first particulate filter comprises exhaust gas and soot particles (e.g. See Paragraphs [0044-0046, 0057]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, Wang further discloses wherein the exhaust stream entering the second particulate filter comprises SCR unit-generated particles (e.g. See Paragraphs [0034] The SCR system 150 includes an SCR catalyst formulated to decompose constituents of an exhaust gas flowing therethrough. In some embodiments, the SCR system 150 may comprise a selective catalytic reduction filter (SCRF), or any other aftertreatment component configured to decompose constituents of the exhaust gas (e.g., NOx gases such as such nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, etc.), flowing through the housing 101 in the presence of a reductant, as described herein.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0033-0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang further discloses wherein greater than 80% of the soot particles entering the first particulate filter are removed by the first particulate filter (e.g. See Paragraphs [0077] For example, ….. As exhaust gas continues to flow through the first filter 140, a PM load, for example, a soot load or an ash load on the first filter 140 continues to increase causing a corresponding increase in the filtration efficiency of the first filter (e.g., the first filter 140) until the first filtration efficiency reaches a first filtration efficiency threshold (e.g., greater than 95% filtration efficiency). In some embodiments, the first filtration efficiency threshold corresponds to a ash load of 0.1-10 g/L on the first filter 140 for a mileage of the engine producing the exhaust of less than 5,000 miles. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, for a particular first filter, the first filtration efficiency threshold corresponds to a 0.25 g/L soot load or equivalent 2 g/L ash load on the first filter, at which the first filtration efficiency is close to 100%. ….) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0044-0046, 0077]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang further discloses wherein at least some of the soot particles entering the first particulate filter are removed by the second particulate filter (e.g. See Paragraphs [0059-0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang further discloses wherein the SCR-generated particles comprise SCR reaction byproduct particles (e.g. See Paragraphs [0032, 0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang further discloses removing at least some of the SCR reaction byproduct particles with the second particulate filter (e.g. See Paragraphs [0034] The SCR system 150 includes an SCR catalyst formulated to decompose constituents of an exhaust gas flowing therethrough. In some embodiments, the SCR system 150 may comprise a selective catalytic reduction filter (SCRF), or any other aftertreatment component configured to decompose constituents of the exhaust gas (e.g., NOx gases such as such nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, etc.), flowing through the housing 101 in the presence of a reductant, as described herein.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0033-0034]).
Regarding claim 15, Wang further discloses wherein the SCR-generated particles comprise NH3-based particles (e.g. See Paragraphs [0032, 0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Wang further discloses regenerating the first particulate filter while flowing the exhaust stream through the second particulate filter (e.g. See Paragraphs [0052-0053, 0057]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Wang) (Patent/Publication Number US 2022/0034245) in view of design choice.
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses all the claimed limitation as discussed above except an internal temperature of the first particulate filter during the regenerating is greater than 550°C.
Regarding the specific range of the filter internal temperature, it is the examiner’s position that a range greater than 550°C of the filter internal temperature, would have been an obvious matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, depending on variables such as mass flow rate of the exhaust gas, as well as the size of the engine and particulate filter, properties of materials for making the particulate filter, and the controlled temperature of the particulate filter. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result, and such modification, i.e. choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions, is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (April 30, 2007)).
Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. In re Dreyfus, 22 CCPA (Patents) 830, 73 F.2d 931, 24 USPQ 52; In re Waite et al., 35 CCPA (Patents) 1117, 168 F.2d 104, 77 USPQ 586. Such ranges are termed "critical" ranges, and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. In re Swenson et al., 30 CCPA (Patents) 809, 132 F.2d 1020, 56 USPQ 372; In re Scherl, 33 CCPA (Patents) 1193, 156 F.2d 72, 70 USPQ 204. However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. In re Sola, 22 CCPA (Patents) 1313, 77 F.2d 627, 25 USPQ 433; In re Normann et al., 32 CCPA (Patents) 1248, 150 F.2d 627, 66 USPQ 308; In re Irmscher, 32 CCPA (Patents) 1259, 150 F.2d 705, 66 USPQ 314. More particularly, 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. In re Swain et al., 33 CCPA (Patents) 1250, 156 F.2d 239, 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 69 App. D.C. 217, 99 F.2d 986, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 77 App. D.C. 324, 135 F.2d 11, 57 USPQ 136.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and consists of seven patents:
Henry et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2014/0165560), Khaled et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2018/0051616), Fischer et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2014/0165540), Gonze et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2013/0111886), Lambert et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2020/0291839), Voss et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2021/0079826), and Siddhanthi et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2021/0215079), all discloses an exhaust gas purification for use with an internal combustion engine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Binh Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-4865. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Mark Laurenzi, can be reach on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Binh Q. Tran
/BINH Q TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3748
February 21, 2026