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 .
Examiner Note
The Examiner notes a clerical error in claim 8 filed on 13 April 2026 which includes the recitation of “wherein the injector comprises a concentric tube around a nozzle, an outer layer of the concentric tube receiving the pressurized gas flow and an inner layer of the concentric tube receiving reductant flow” in lines 7-9. The recitation was not present in the previous claim set filed 23 June 2025, however, is not underlined as being an added amendment. Accordingly, the recitation is treated as being new to the claim set filed 13 April 2026 and not previously presented.
Claim Interpretation
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: “ammonia generator” in claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 10-16.
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 § 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 2018/0238213) in view of Saiki et al. (US 2021/0222602), further in view of Sato (JP 2007-040118).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner below)
Kulkarni et al. (Kul) discloses:
An apparatus for reducing emissions in an exhaust gas flow of an engine (112), the apparatus comprising:
- a reactor vessel (172) positioned externally from the exhaust gas flow, the reactor vessel (172) comprising an inlet (A) and an outlet (B), the outlet in communication with the exhaust gas flow (See Kul, Paragraph [0048]);
- the inlet (A) introduces urea and an opening (C) for introducing air to be mixed with the urea (See Kul, Paragraph [0046]); and
- an ammonia generator (174) within the reactor vessel (172), the ammonia generator (174) generating a gaseous reductant flow from the injected reductant flow, the gaseous reductant flow transmitted into the exhaust gas flow via the outlet (B) of the reactor vessel (172). (See Kul, Paragraph [0046]-[0048]).
Kul discloses the claimed invention except:
an injector positioned within the reactor vessel, the injector receiving a reductant flow from the inlet of the reactor vessel and combining the reductant flow with a pressurized gas flow to generate a reductant spray, wherein the injector comprises a concentric tube around a nozzle, an outer layer of the concentric tube receiving the pressurized gas flow and an inner layer of the concentric tube receiving reductant flow, and wherein the pressurized gas flow in the outer layer urges the reductant spray generated by the nozzle into an internal space of the reactor vessel.
Saiki et al. (Saiki) discloses an SCR exhaust gas treatment system. (See Saiki, Abstract). Saiki discloses a reactor vessel with an injector positioned within the reactor vessel which mixes urea with a gas, heats, and gasifies ammonia for supply to an exhaust system for reduction of emissions. (See Saiki, Figure 1, Abstract and Paragraph [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processing device of Saiki as the evaporator of Kul, as both references are directed towards SCR exhaust gas treatment systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the evaporator of Saiki would have provided adequate ammonia without the risk of deposit buildup within the device. (See Saiki, Paragraph [0007]).
Sato discloses a urea atomization nozzle for introducing reductant for NOx reduction of exhaust gases. (See Sato, Paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). Sato discloses an atomization injector which comprises a concentric tube around a nozzle, an outer layer of the concentric tube receiving the pressurized gas flow and an inner layer of the concentric tube receiving reductant flow, and wherein the pressurized gas flow in the outer layer urges the reductant spray generated by the nozzle into an internal space. (See Sato, Figure 2, Paragraphs [0018]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the atomization injector of Sato in the Kul-Saiki combination, as both references are directed towards reductant injection NOx reduction. Additionally, Saiki discloses utilization of any known atomization injector device for the reaction vessel, including those utilizing air atomization. (See Saiki, Paragraphs [0080]-[0081]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the injector of Sato would have been a simple substitution of one known atomization reductant injector for another that would yield the predictable result of atomizing reductant for the reactor vessel. Additionally, One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the injector of Sato would have compactly vaporized reductant and increased efficiency for injection while reducing droplet formation on the piping and preventing cracking. (See Sato, Paragraphs [0012]-[0014]).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Sato discloses:
wherein the ammonia generator comprises at least one heating element (174) positioned within the reactor vessel, the at least one heating element (174) receiving the reductant spray to generate a gaseous reductant flow, the gaseous reductant flow transmitted into the exhaust gas flow via the outlet of the reactor vessel (172). (See Saiki, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
In Reference to Claim 3
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Sato discloses:
wherein the ammonia generator comprises a heated airflow stream received from a heater (174) positioned externally from the reactor vessel (172), the heated airflow and the reductant spray combining within the reactor vessel (172) to generate a gaseous reductant flow, the gaseous reductant flow transmitted into the exhaust gas flow via the outlet (B) of the reactor vessel (172); and wherein the reactor vessel (172) operates independently from the exhaust gas flow. (See Saiki, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
The Examiner notes that Kul of the Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Sato discloses additionally heating the air flow externally before entering the reactor vessel.
In Reference to Claim 4
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Sato discloses:
wherein the reductant comprises an aqueous urea solution. (See Kul, Paragraph [0046]).
In Reference to Claim 5
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Sato discloses:
wherein the gaseous reductant flow comprises ammonia. (See Kul, Paragraph [0046]).
In Reference to Claim 6
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Sato discloses:
wherein the one or more ammonia generator comprise one or more high temperature heating elements configured to operate at a temperature above 500°C; and wherein an operating temperature of the one or more high temperature heating elements is independent of the temperature of the exhaust gas flow.
Saiki et al. (Saiki) discloses an SCR exhaust gas treatment system. (See Saiki, Abstract). Saiki discloses a reactor with an injector positioned within the reactor vessel which mixes urea with a gas, heats, and gasifies ammonia for supply to an exhaust system for reduction of emissions. (See Saiki, Figure 1, Abstract and Paragraphs [0113] & [0057] w/respect to temperature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processing device of Saiki as the evaporator of Kul, as both references are directed towards SCR exhaust gas treatment systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the evaporator of Saiki would have provided adequate ammonia without the risk of deposit buildup within the device. (See Saiki, Paragraph [0007]).
In Reference to Claim 7
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Sato discloses:
wherein the injector comprises a concentric tube around the nozzle, an outer concentric tube of the injector receiving the pressurized gas flow and an inner concentric tube of the injector receiving reductant flow, and wherein the outer concentric tube of the injector cools the injector to reduce early evaporation of the reductant before the reductant flow passes through the nozzle. (See Sato, Figure 2, Paragraphs [0018]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the atomization injector of Sato in the Kul-Saiki combination, as both references are directed towards reductant injection NOx reduction. Additionally, Saiki discloses utilization of any known atomization injector device for the reaction vessel, including those utilizing air atomization. (See Saiki, Paragraphs [0080]-[0081]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the injector of Sato would have been a simple substitution of one known atomization reductant injector for another that would yield the predictable result of atomizing reductant for the reactor vessel. Additionally, One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the injector of Sato would have compactly vaporized reductant and increased efficiency for injection while reducing droplet formation on the piping and preventing cracking. (See Sato, Paragraphs [0012]-[0014]).
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 2018/0238213) in view of Saiki et al. (US 2021/0222602), further in view of Williams et al. (US 2015/0190749) and Sato (JP 2007-040118).
In Reference to Claim 8
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner below)
Kul discloses:
A system for reducing emissions in an exhaust gas flow of an engine, the system comprising
- an ammonia generator (174) within the reactor vessel, the ammonia generator (174) generating a gaseous reductant flow from the injected reductant flow, the gaseous reductant flow transmitted into the exhaust gas flow via the outlet of the reactor vessel (172) (See Kul, Paragraph [0046]-[0048]);
- a pre-treatment sensor (300) in communication with the exhaust gas flow upstream of the reactor vessel outlet (172) (See Kul, Paragraph [0078]); and
- a processor (180) in communication with the pre-treatment sensor (300) (See Kul, Paragraph [0078]), the processor (180) configured to:
- receive an exhaust gas flow measurement from the pre-treatment sensor (300). (See Kul, Paragraph [0078]).
Kul discloses the claimed invention except:
an injector positioned within a reactor vessel, the reactor vessel positioned externally from the exhaust gas flow, the injector receiving a reductant flow from an inlet of the reactor vessel at a reductant flow rate and combining the reductant flow with a pressurized gas flow to generate a reductant spray, wherein the injector comprises a concentric tube around a nozzle, an outer layer of the concentric tube receiving the pressurized gas flow and an inner layer of the concentric tube receiving reductant flow, and wherein the pressurized gas flow in the outer layer urges the reductant spray generated by the nozzle into an internal space of the reactor vessel; and the processor is further configured to determine a revised reductant flow rate based on the exhaust gas flow measurement and transmit a signal to the injector to adjust the reductant flow rate to the revised reductant flow rate.
Saiki et al. (Saiki) discloses an SCR exhaust gas treatment system. (See Saiki, Abstract). Saiki discloses a reactor with an injector positioned within the reactor vessel which mixes urea with a gas, heats, and gasifies ammonia for supply to an exhaust system for reduction of emissions. (See Saiki, Figure 1, Abstract and Paragraph [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processing device of Saiki as the evaporator of Kul, as both references are directed towards SCR exhaust gas treatment systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the evaporator of Saiki would have provided adequate ammonia without the risk of deposit buildup within the device. (See Saiki, Paragraph [0007]).
Sato discloses a urea atomization nozzle for introducing reductant for NOx reduction of exhaust gases. (See Sato, Paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). Sato discloses an atomization injector which comprises a concentric tube around a nozzle, an outer layer of the concentric tube receiving the pressurized gas flow and an inner layer of the concentric tube receiving reductant flow, and wherein the pressurized gas flow in the outer layer urges the reductant spray generated by the nozzle into an internal space. (See Sato, Figure 2, Paragraphs [0018]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the atomization injector of Sato in the Kul-Saiki combination, as both references are directed towards reductant injection NOx reduction. Additionally, Saiki discloses utilization of any known atomization injector device for the reaction vessel, including those utilizing air atomization. (See Saiki, Paragraphs [0080]-[0081]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the injector of Sato would have been a simple substitution of one known atomization reductant injector for another that would yield the predictable result of atomizing reductant for the reactor vessel. Additionally, One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the injector of Sato would have compactly vaporized reductant and increased efficiency for injection while reducing droplet formation on the piping and preventing cracking. (See Sato, Paragraphs [0012]-[0014]).
Williams et al. (Will) discloses an exhaust aftertreatment SCR control system. (See Will, Abstract). Will discloses using data from an upstream and downstream exhaust gas sensor to determine reductant dosing. (See Will, Paragraphs [0018] & [0037]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the SCR upstream and downstream sensor reductant dosing using the control of Will, as both references are directed towards exhaust aftertreatment SCR control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the dosing control of Will would have controlled ammonia slip by addressing sensor cross-sensitivity when dosing reductant lowering emissions and increasing overall efficiency. (See Will, Paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 9
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
wherein the ammonia generator comprises at least one heating element (174) positioned within the reactor vessel, the at least one heating element (174) receiving the reductant spray to generate a gaseous reductant flow, the gaseous reductant flow transmitted into the exhaust gas flow via the outlet of the reactor vessel (172). (See Saiki, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
In Reference to Claim 10
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
wherein the ammonia generator comprises a heated airflow stream received from a heater (174) positioned externally from the reactor vessel (172), the heated airflow and the reductant spray combining within the reactor vessel (172) to generate a gaseous reductant flow, the gaseous reductant flow transmitted into the exhaust gas flow via the outlet (B) of the reactor vessel (172); and wherein the reactor vessel (172) operates independently from the exhaust gas flow. (See Saiki, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
The Examiner notes that Kul of the Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses additionally heating the air flow externally before entering the reactor vessel.
In Reference to Claim 11
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
a reductant pump (168) upstream of the injector, wherein the processor (180) is configured to transmit a signal to the reductant pump (168) to adjust the reductant flow rate. (See Kul, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048] & [0078]).
The Examiner notes that the processor of Kul controls the exhaust emissions system which includes the pump.
In Reference to Claim 12
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
wherein the processor (180) is configured to transmit a signal to the at least one heating element (174) to control a temperature of the reactor vessel (172). (See Kul, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048] & [0078]).
The Examiner notes that the processor of Kul controls the exhaust emissions system which includes the heater(s).
In Reference to Claim 13
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
a reductant valve (170) upstream of the reactor vessel inlet (A), wherein the processor (180) is configured to transmit a signal to the reductant valve (170) to adjust the reductant flow rate to the injector. (See Kul, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048] & [0078]).
In Reference to Claim 14
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
wherein the pre-treatment sensor is at least one selected from the group of: a NOx sensor, a temperature sensor, or an exhaust flow rate sensor. (See Kul, Paragraph [0078 & Will, Paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the SCR upstream and downstream sensor reductant dosing using the control of Will, as both references are directed towards exhaust aftertreatment SCR control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the dosing control of Will would have controlled ammonia slip by addressing sensor cross-sensitivity when dosing reductant lowering emissions and increasing overall efficiency. (See Will, Paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
In Reference to Claim 15
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
further comprising a post treatment sensor positioned in the exhaust gas flow downstream of the reactor vessel outlet, the post-treatment sensor transmitting a gaseous reductant measurement of the exhaust gas flow to the processor; and wherein the processor is configured to: determine the revised reductant flow rate based on the exhaust gas flow measurement and the gaseous concentration measurement. (See Will, Paragraphs [0018] & [0037]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the SCR upstream and downstream sensor reductant dosing using the control of Will, as both references are directed towards exhaust aftertreatment SCR control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the dosing control of Will would have controlled ammonia slip by addressing sensor cross-sensitivity when dosing reductant lowering emissions and increasing overall efficiency. (See Will, Paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
In Reference to Claim 16
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
further comprising at least one heating element sensor, each of the at least one heating element sensor capturing a corresponding heating element temperature measurement; and wherein the processor is further configured to: - receive the at least one heating element temperature measurement; - determine a revised temperature set point for each of the at least one heating element based on the at least one heating element temperature measurement; and - transmit the revised temperature set point to the at least one heating element.
Saiki et al. (Saiki) discloses an SCR exhaust gas treatment system. (See Saiki, Abstract). Saiki discloses a reactor with an injector positioned within the reactor vessel which mixes urea with a gas, heats, and gasifies ammonia for supply to an exhaust system for reduction of emissions. (See Saiki, Figure 1, Abstract and Paragraph [0113]). Saiki additionally discloses measuring temperature and adjusting the heating element accordingly to a revised temperature setpoint. (See Saiki, Paragraph [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processing device of Saiki as the evaporator of Kul, as both references are directed towards SCR exhaust gas treatment systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the evaporator of Saiki would have provided adequate ammonia without the risk of deposit buildup within the device. (See Saiki, Paragraph [0007]).
In Reference to Claim 17
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner below)
Kul discloses:
A method of reducing emissions in an exhaust gas flow, the method comprising,
- generating a reductant with a reactor vessel (172), the reactor vessel (172) positioned externally from the exhaust gas flow (See Kul, Paragraph [0046]-[0048]);
- generating a gaseous reductant flow from the reductant spray by heating at least one heating element (174) positioned within the reactor vessel (172), the at least one heating element (174) receiving the reductant spray to generate the gaseous reductant flow (See Kul, Paragraph [0046]-[0048]);
- transmitting the gaseous reductant flow into the exhaust gas flow via an outlet (B) of the reactor vessel (172) (See Kul, Paragraph [0046]-[0048]);
receiving, at a processor (180) from a pre-treatment sensor (300) in communication with the exhaust gas flow upstream of the reactor vessel outlet (B), an exhaust gas flow measurement. (See Kul, Paragraph [0046]-[0048] & [0078])
Kul discloses the claimed invention except:
the injector positioned in the reactor receiving a reductant flow from an inlet of the reactor vessel at a reductant flow rate and combining the reductant flow with a pressurized gas flow to generate the reductant spray, wherein the injector comprises a concentric tube around a nozzle, an outer layer of the concentric tube receiving the pressurized gas flow and an inner layer of the concentric tube receiving reductant flow, and wherein the pressurized gas flow in the outer layer urges the reductant spray generated by the nozzle into an internal space of the reactor vessel; and - determining, at the processor, a revised reductant flow rate based on the exhaust gas flow measurement; transmitting a signal to the injector to adjust the reductant flow rate to the revised reductant flow rate.
Saiki et al. (Saiki) discloses an SCR exhaust gas treatment system. (See Saiki, Abstract). Saiki discloses a reactor with an injector positioned within the reactor vessel which mixes urea with a gas, heats, and gasifies ammonia for supply to an exhaust system for reduction of emissions. (See Saiki, Figure 1, Abstract and Paragraph [0113]). Saiki additionally discloses measuring temperature and adjusting the heating element accordingly to a revised temperature setpoint. (See Saiki, Paragraph [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processing device of Saiki as the evaporator of Kul, as both references are directed towards SCR exhaust gas treatment systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the evaporator of Saiki would have provided adequate ammonia without the risk of deposit buildup within the device. (See Saiki, Paragraph [0007]).
Sato discloses a urea atomization nozzle for introducing reductant for NOx reduction of exhaust gases. (See Sato, Paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). Sato discloses an atomization injector which comprises a concentric tube around a nozzle, an outer layer of the concentric tube receiving the pressurized gas flow and an inner layer of the concentric tube receiving reductant flow, and wherein the pressurized gas flow in the outer layer urges the reductant spray generated by the nozzle into an internal space. (See Sato, Figure 2, Paragraphs [0018]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the atomization injector of Sato in the Kul-Saiki combination, as both references are directed towards reductant injection NOx reduction. Additionally, Saiki discloses utilization of any known atomization injector device for the reaction vessel, including those utilizing air atomization. (See Saiki, Paragraphs [0080]-[0081]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the injector of Sato would have been a simple substitution of one known atomization reductant injector for another that would yield the predictable result of atomizing reductant for the reactor vessel. Additionally, One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the injector of Sato would have compactly vaporized reductant and increased efficiency for injection while reducing droplet formation on the piping and preventing cracking. (See Sato, Paragraphs [0012]-[0014]).
Williams et al. (Will) discloses an exhaust aftertreatment SCR control system. (See Will, Abstract). Will discloses using data from an upstream and downstream exhaust gas sensor to determine reductant dosing. (See Will, Paragraphs [0018] & [0037]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the SCR upstream and downstream sensor reductant dosing using the control of Will, as both references are directed towards exhaust aftertreatment SCR control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the dosing control of Will would have controlled ammonia slip by addressing sensor cross-sensitivity when dosing reductant lowering emissions and increasing overall efficiency. (See Will, Paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 18
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
wherein the pre-treatment sensor is at least one selected from the group of: a NOx sensor, a temperature sensor, or an exhaust flow rate sensor. (See Kul, Paragraph [0078 & Will, Paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the SCR upstream and downstream sensor reductant dosing using the control of Will, as both references are directed towards exhaust aftertreatment SCR control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the dosing control of Will would have controlled ammonia slip by addressing sensor cross-sensitivity when dosing reductant lowering emissions and increasing overall efficiency. (See Will, Paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
In Reference to Claim 19
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
further comprising a post treatment sensor positioned in the exhaust gas flow downstream of the reactor vessel outlet, the post-treatment sensor transmitting a gaseous reductant measurement of the exhaust gas flow to the processor; and wherein the processor is configured to: determine the revised reductant flow rate based on the exhaust gas flow measurement and the gaseous concentration measurement. (See Will, Paragraphs [0018] & [0037]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the SCR upstream and downstream sensor reductant dosing using the control of Will, as both references are directed towards exhaust aftertreatment SCR control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the dosing control of Will would have controlled ammonia slip by addressing sensor cross-sensitivity when dosing reductant lowering emissions and increasing overall efficiency. (See Will, Paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
In Reference to Claim 20
(See Kul, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner above)
The Kul-Saiki combination as modified by Will and Sato discloses:
further comprising at least one heating element sensor, each of the at least one heating element sensor capturing a corresponding heating element temperature measurement; and wherein the processor is further configured to: - receive the at least one heating element temperature measurement; - determine a revised temperature set point for each of the at least one heating element based on the at least one heating element temperature measurement; and - transmit the revised temperature set point to the at least one heating element.
Saiki et al. (Saiki) discloses an SCR exhaust gas treatment system. (See Saiki, Abstract). Saiki discloses a reactor with an injector positioned within the reactor vessel which mixes urea with a gas, heats, and gasifies ammonia for supply to an exhaust system for reduction of emissions. (See Saiki, Figure 1, Abstract and Paragraph [0113]). Saiki additionally discloses measuring temperature and adjusting the heating element accordingly to a revised temperature setpoint. (See Saiki, Paragraph [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processing device of Saiki as the evaporator of Kul, as both references are directed towards SCR exhaust gas treatment systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the evaporator of Saiki would have provided adequate ammonia without the risk of deposit buildup within the device. (See Saiki, Paragraph [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim interpretation and the “ammonia generator” denoting a structural element, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the “ammonia generator denotes a structural component having physical existence within the reactor vessel and is not a nonce term. The specification as filed consistently describes the ammonia generator in structural terms, including implementations using one or more heating elements and/or heated airflow streams to convert injected reductant into gaseous ammonia (See, e.g. spec [0069]-[0070])”. However, an “ammonia generator” is not a known structure in the art and accordingly is being interpreted under 112(f). As noted by Applicant, the instant specification discloses the structure of an “ammonia generator” as including one or more heating elements or even merely comprising heated air within the reactor vessel. Accordingly, 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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