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) 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub No. US 2015/0167523 A1 to Tsutsumi et. al. (Tsutsumi).
In Reference to Claim 1
An engine device comprising:
an exhaust gas purification device including:
a first case (33); and
a second case (34), wherein the first case (33) and the second case (34) are connected via a tube (35, 36A) (see at least Tsutsumi Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0032] “The first and second aftertreatment units 31, 32 each include: a first exhaust gas emission control system 33 provided upstream in the flow direction of the exhaust gas; a second exhaust gas emission control system 34 provided downstream in the flow direction; a mixing pipe 35 through which the first and second exhaust gas emission control systems 33, 34 are in communication with each other; and a urea supply device 36 that is provided between the first exhaust gas emission control system 33 and the mixing pipe 35 and includes an elbow pipe 36A”); and
a urea-water injection body (36) for injecting urea water into the tube (35, 36A) is placed above the first case (33) (see at least Tsutsumi Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0047] “After the exhaust gas passes through the oxidation catalysts 33A, particular matter in the exhaust gas is collected by the soot filters 33B. The exhaust gas then radially flows out of the first exhaust gas emission control systems 33 through the outflow pipes 41A and flows into the elbow pipes 36A. In the elbow pipe 36A, the urea solution is sprayed into the exhaust gas from the urea supply device 36. While passing through the mixing pipes 35, in which the flow direction is again changed to the front-and-rear direction, the exhaust gas is well mixed with the sprayed urea solution. The exhaust gas then radially flows into the second exhaust gas emission control systems 34 through the inflow pipe 42A”).
In Reference to Claim 2
The engine device according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the urea-water injection body (36) is provided above an exhaust outlet of the first case (33) (see at least Tsutsumi Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0047] “After the exhaust gas passes through the oxidation catalysts 33A, particular matter in the exhaust gas is collected by the soot filters 33B. The exhaust gas then radially flows out of the first exhaust gas emission control systems 33 through the outflow pipes 41A and flows into the elbow pipes 36A. In the elbow pipe 36A, the urea solution is sprayed into the exhaust gas from the urea supply device 36. While passing through the mixing pipes 35, in which the flow direction is again changed to the front-and-rear direction, the exhaust gas is well mixed with the sprayed urea solution. The exhaust gas then radially flows into the second exhaust gas emission control systems 34 through the inflow pipe 42A”).
In Reference to Claim 3
The engine device according to claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein a straight portion (35) of the tube (35, 36A) is provided downstream of the urea-water injection body (36A) in a direction of exhaust gas flow (see at least Tsutsumi Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0032] “The first and second aftertreatment units 31, 32 each include: a first exhaust gas emission control system 33 provided upstream in the flow direction of the exhaust gas; a second exhaust gas emission control system 34 provided downstream in the flow direction; a mixing pipe 35 through which the first and second exhaust gas emission control systems 33, 34 are in communication with each other; and a urea supply device 36 that is provided between the first exhaust gas emission control system 33 and the mixing pipe 35 and includes an elbow pipe 36A”).
In Reference to Claim 4
The engine device according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein a flow direction of the exhaust gas changes between an upstream side (flow from #41A) and a downstream side (flow to #35) of the urea-water injection body (36) (see at least Tsutsumi Figs. 2-5 and paragraphs 32-33, 36 and 47).
In Reference to Claim 5
The engine device according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein at least a portion (lower part of #36A where it meets #41A) of the tube (35, 36A) extends vertically (see at least Tsutsumi Figs. 2-5 and paragraphs 32 and 47).
In Reference to Claim 6
The engine device according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein one of the cases (34) is placed on a top surface of the engine (7), and the other (33) is placed on a side surface of the engine (7) (see at least Tsutsumi Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0038] “The first and second aftertreatment units 31, 32 are provided at the right and left shoulders of the engine 7 in such a manner that the pair of first exhaust gas emission control systems 33 are spaced from each other in the right-and-left direction and the pair of second exhaust gas emission control systems 34 are located close to each other between the first exhaust gas emission control systems 33. The first exhaust gas emission control system 33 of each of the first and second aftertreatment units 31, 32 is laterally displaced from a position just above the engine 7 while being below the second exhaust gas emission control system 34 provided at a position just above the engine 7. The mixing pipe 35 is provided between the first and second exhaust gas emission control systems 33, 34 while being above the first exhaust gas emission control system 33”).
In Reference to Claim 8
The engine device according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the second case (34) is disposed above a flywheel housing (25) (see at least Tsutsumi Figs. 2-5 and paragraphs 34, 38 and 41).
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub No. US 2015/0345360 A1 to Himoto et. al. (Himoto).
In Reference to Claim 1
An engine device comprising:
an exhaust gas purification device including:
a first case (one of #41 or #42); and
a second case (one of #42 or #41), wherein the first case (one of #41 or #42) and the second case (one of #42 or #41) are connected via a tube (52); and
a urea-water injection body (49) for injecting urea water into the tube (52) is placed above the first case (one of #41 or #42) (see at least Himoto Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 41, 50-52).
In Reference to Claim 7
The engine device according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the second case (42) is positioned lower than the first case (41) vertically (see at least Himoto Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 41, 50-52).
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.
Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,690,034 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of patent ‘034 teaches all the recitation of claims 1-8 of the current application.
Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,092,056 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of patent ‘056 teaches all the recitation of claims 1-8 of the current application.
Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,643,960 in view of Pub No. US 2015/0345360 A1 to Himoto et. al. (Himoto). Claim 1 of patent ‘056 teaches having two exhaust cases does not teach having a urea-water injection body for injecting urea water into the tube is placed above the first case. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the current application that an urea-water injection body for injecting urea water into the tube is placed above the first case. For example, Himoto teaches to have the urea injector (49) in the tube (52) which is above the first case (41). Himoto teaches that having such structure provide urea to the selective catalytic reduction device (42) in order to purify the exhaust gas (see at least Himoto Figs. 1-2 and 4-5, and paragraphs 51-54). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims 1-7 of the current application with the urea injector located on the tube which is above the first case in order to purify the exhaust gas.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,297,763 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of patent ‘763 teaches all the recitation of claims 1-8 of the current application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 9,745,718 B2 to Mochimaru (Mochimaru) teaches exhaust system with two cases and an urea injector in between the cases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights