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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lapointe et al (US2014/0069086A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lapointe teaches an apparatus configured to recirculate internal combustion engine exhaust gas recirculation (Figures 2-7 illustrate various EGR structural designs), the apparatus comprising: an exhaust gas recirculation line having an exhaust gas recirculation cooler (See EGR cooler in each of Figures 2-7), an exhaust gas recirculation valve (See EGR valve in each of Figures 2-7), and a catalyst (See catalysts 264 in Figure 2, 464 in Figure 4, 564 in Figure 5), wherein the catalyst is arranged after the exhaust gas recirculation cooler in a flow direction of recirculated exhaust gas (See Paragraph 0041 "in other embodiments, the NOx catalyst 264 could be positioned downstream of the EGR cooler 266 if desired.").
Regarding claim 2, Lapointe discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Lapointe teaches that the internal combustion engine is designed a hydrogen engine (Paragraph 0030).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not teach [with the use of “the apparatus comprising an exhaust gas recirculation line having an exhaust gas recirculation cooler, an exhaust gas recirculation valve, and a catalyst, wherein the catalyst is arranged after the exhaust gas recirculation cooler in a flow direction of recirculated exhaust gas”] “adjusting a defined uncombusted amount of fuel at the catalyst by controlling the combustion or ignition in the internal combustion engine, wherein the defined uncombusted amount of fuel is catalytically burned by the catalyst to avoid ice formation due to combustion heat.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to perform these steps with the extremely rare structure which is disclosed by Lapointe, as noted in the 102 section above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Lapointe, does not teach that “the recirculation line opens into an air supply duct to the internal combustion engine after a compressor”, and given the rarity of the previously cited structure in the prior art, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to make this simple modification absent some reasonable motivation to do so, as post compressor inlet from this EGR line structure would change the flow characteristics drastically..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R STECKBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-0433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30-7:30 PST.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/KEVIN R STECKBAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights