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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-In claim 10, line 6, “management process” should be changed to ----- management process. -----. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent Number US 11,828,218 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent Number US 12,352,197 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, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakata et al. (Sakata) (Patent/Publication Number US 2009/0288396).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Sakata discloses a system (Figure 1) comprising: an exhaust aftertreatment system (11, 12, 13) having a catalyst (12, 13) in exhaust gas-receiving communication with an engine (e.g. See Paragraphs [0020]) and at least one reductant dosing system (15, 23) structured to provide reductant to exhaust gas (e.g. See Paragraphs [0025-0028]); and a controller (40) structured to: receive information indicative of a first characteristic (e.g. Vex, Tdoc, Tscr) of the exhaust gas at a first time (e.g. See Paragraphs [0036, 0042]); receive information indicative of a second characteristic of the exhaust gas at a second time after the first time (e.g. See Paragraphs [0046] With regard to calculation of the reaction ratio Rre, the configuration using the two-dimensional map with the ratio Rn of NO/NO2 and the SCR catalytic temperature Tscr as parameters may be modified to the following configuration (1), (2). [0047] (1) The reaction ratio Rre (base value) is calculated based on the ratio Rn of NO/NO2 at that time using a reaction ratio map with the ratio Rn of NO/NO2 as a parameter, and the reaction ratio Rre is corrected by the SCR catalytic temperature Tscr. [0048] (2) The reaction ratio Rre is calculated based on the SCR catalytic temperature Tscr at that time using a reaction ratio map with the SCR catalytic temperature Tscr as a parameter, and the reaction ratio Rre is corrected by the ratio Rn of NO/NO2.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0040, 0042-0046]); determine one or more of a concentration of one or more of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), or a ratio of NO to NO2 (Rn) at or proximate an inlet of the catalyst (e.g. See Paragraphs [0037-0038, 0040]); and command the at least one reductant dosing system to increase, decrease, or maintain an amount of reductant provided to the exhaust gas based on each of the first characteristic, the second characteristic, and the determination (e.g. See Paragraphs [0045] When (formula 2) which is a reaction formula for NO and (formula 3) which is a reaction formula for NO2 are compared, the reaction ratio at the time of NOx reduction is larger in the latter. Therefore, the reaction ratio may be calculated as a larger value as the ratio of NO/NO2 is smaller. In other words, the ammonia reaction amount increases as the NO2 amount as opposed to the NO amount is larger, and more ammonia is reacted accordingly during the reduction reaction of (formula 3). Consequently, it is desirable to calculate the reaction ratio in consideration of the above.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0040, 0043-0046, 0052-0053]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Sakata further discloses wherein the controller (40) is further structured to command the at least one reductant dosing system to increase the amount of reductant provided to the exhaust gas in response to a concentration of NO2 being at or above a concentration of NO (e.g. See Paragraphs [0045] When (formula 2) which is a reaction formula for NO and (formula 3) which is a reaction formula for NO2 are compared, the reaction ratio at the time of NOx reduction is larger in the latter. Therefore, the reaction ratio may be calculated as a larger value as the ratio of NO/NO2 is smaller. In other words, the ammonia reaction amount increases as the NO2 amount as opposed to the NO amount is larger, and more ammonia is reacted accordingly during the reduction reaction of (formula 3). Consequently, it is desirable to calculate the reaction ratio in consideration of the above.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0037, 0043-0046, 0052-0053]).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Sakata further discloses wherein the controller is structured to determine a current concentration of NO and NO2, and wherein the controller is structured to in response to determining that the current concentration of NO2 is higher than the current concentration of NO and that the current concentration of NO2 is lower than a previous concentration of NO2, reduce the amount of reductant provided to the exhaust gas (e.g. See Paragraphs [0037-0040, 0043-0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 9-12, and 16-19 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; and also to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action, such as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, double patenting rejection(s), and 112 2nd paragraph.
Since allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant is encouraged to submit Final Formal Drawings (If Needed) in response to this Office action. The early submission of formal drawings will permit the Office to review the drawings for acceptability and to resolve any informalities remaining therein before the application is passed to issue. This will avoid possible delays in the issue process.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and consists of seven patents:
Ott et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 11473478), Khaled et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2014/0223886), Masaki et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2013/0064717), Yasui et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2012/0117954), Scherer et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2012/0222401), Roberts et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 8562924), and Matsunaga et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2013/0318949), 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
April 02, 2026
Prosecution Insights