Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/275,538

EXHAUST SYSTEM AND COMPONENTS THEREOF

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jul 21, 2025
Examiner
SINGH, DAPINDER
Art Unit
3746
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ecc Tec Msj Incorporated
OA Round
4 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
715 granted / 869 resolved
+12.3% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
894
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 869 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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) 1-5, 8, 12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0318518 to Kinnaird et al (Kinnaird). Regarding claim 1, Kinnaird discloses an assembly comprising: an external heater unit (44, figs. 2-5) that includes one or more heating elements and an exit port (56, figs. 2-5); and a dosing solution injector (36, figs. 2-5; [27]) connected to the external heater unit and configured to spray a dosing solution through the one or more heating elements, such that the dosing solution is vaporized within the external heater unit, exits the exit port as steam, and travels into an exhaust system (32, figs. 2-5) to contact exhaust therein. Regarding claim 2, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the dosing solution is vaporized entirely by the one or more heating elements (operation of the heater; [30]). Regarding claim 3, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the exit port is configured to be coupled to an exhaust system and allow the steam to flow into the exhaust system (figs. 2-5). Regarding claim 4, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 3 wherein exit port is configured to be coupled to one or more of the following components of the exhaust system: an exhaust manifold, a catalytic converter (22, figs. 2-5), a diesel oxidation catalyst (18, figs. 2-5), a diesel particulate filter (DPF) (20, figs. 2-5), a selective catalytic reduction system (SCR) (22, figs. 2-5), a muffler, an exhaust system pipe (14, figs. 2-5), and a smoke stack. Regarding claim 5, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, further comprising a dosing solution distributor (mixers 18, 24, 524, 570, figs. 2-6) positioned downstream of the dosing solution injector to distribute the dosing solution sprayed by the dosing solution injector. Regarding claim 8, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more heating elements comprises a plurality of heating elements ([30]; additional heaters can be used). Regarding claim 12, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the assembly is a component of a vehicle exhaust system (fig. 1). Regarding claim 14, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the external heater unit is positioned outside the exhaust system (figs. 2-5). Regarding claim 15, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, further comprising a connection pipe connecting the exit port to the exhaust system (figs. 2-5), the connection pipe allowing the steam to travel into the exhaust system and contact the exhaust. Regarding claim 13, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the assembly is a component of an exhaust system of an industrial power plant (the assembly of Kinnaird is capable of being a component of an exhaust system of an industrial power plant). 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. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnaird as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0003056 to Huang et al. (Huang). Regarding claim 7, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, including that the heater chamber 42 can be monitored by one or more sensors located in the chamber or close to the chamber ([31], and a controller that controls reducing agent dosing based on the signals from the sensors ([52]), but does not explicitly disclose the one of the sensors is a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature associated with the external heater unit; a controller communicatively coupled to the temperature sensor and the dosing solution injector, the controller configured to: receive the temperature detected by the temperature sensor; and cause the dosing solution injector to spray the dosing solution through the one or more heating elements based at least in part on the received temperature. However, Huang discloses a heater assembly that includes a temperature sensor (232, figs. 2-4) configured to detect a temperature associated with the heater unit; a controller (202-204, fig. 2; [29]) communicatively coupled to the temperature sensor and the dosing solution injector, the controller configured to: receive the temperature detected by the temperature sensor ([37]); and cause the dosing solution injector to spray the dosing solution through the one or more heating elements based at least in part on the received temperature ([33]-[37]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the temperature sensor and the controller of Huang with the device of Kinnaird so as to be able to implement one or more schedules or programs that function to modify one or more operational aspects of the SCR system ([37]; Huang). Regarding claim 9, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose which Huang discloses: the one or more heating elements have a spiral or zig-zag shape (341-356, fig. 3, 400-410, fig. 4; [43]-[55]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the heater elements of Huang with the device of Kinnaird for enhancing subsequent reactions to reduce the NOx ([40]; Huang). Regarding claim 11, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose which Huang discloses: the one or more heating elements is a heating wire (401, 411, fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the heater elements of Huang with the device of Kinnaird for enhancing subsequent reactions to reduce the NOx ([40]; Huang). Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0082042 to Crawford et al (Crawford). Regarding claim 10, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 1, , but does not explicitly disclose which Crawford discloses: the one or more heating elements comprise a chrome-nickel material ([50]-[51]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have one or more heating elements comprise a chrome-nickel material as taught by Crawford with the system of Kinnaird so as to reduce pollution from internal combustion engine at start-up and when idling [2]; Crawford) using a system that constitutes two types of heating, induction and resistance ([69]; Crawford). Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnaird as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2011/0239631 to Bui et al (Bui). Regarding claim 6, Kinnaird discloses the assembly of claim 5 but does not explicitly disclose which Bui discloses: the dosing solution distributor (26, fig. 6) comprises: a plurality of wings or plates (82, fig. 6; [44]) at a predetermined distance from each other; a plurality of openings (68, fig. 6) between the plurality of wings or plates; and a circular aperture (64, fig. 6) at a center of the dosing solution distributor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the dosing solution distributor of Bui with the device of Kinnaird for preventing the formation of deposits ([51]; [Bui). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kinnaird does not disclose “a dosing solution injector connected to the external heater unit and configured to spray a dosing solution through the one or more heating elements. However, the office respectfully disagrees. Kinnaird clearly shows in figure 2 that reducing agent is admitted into heater chamber 42 via orifice plate 52 of the injector 36. Figure 2 also shows that heater 44 is placed within the heater chamber. Furthermore, paragraph [27] also discloses that doser is injected into chamber 42 via valve plate 52 of the injector 36. Once injected into the chamber, the reducing agent will contact and go through heater 42 to reach outlet passageway 48 as disclosed in [48]. As such, the prior art clearly reads on the limitation. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bui. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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. /DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 02, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601277
TURBFAN ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601284
INSTALLATION FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY OR MECHANICAL POWER, COMPRISING A COMBINED CYCLE GAS TURBINE, AND CO2 CAPTURE AND WATER ELECTROLYSIS UNITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601348
COMPRESSOR ASSEMBLIES INCLUDING LOWER COVERS HAVING MOUNTING FEET SKIRTS CONFIGURED FOR INCREASING MOUNTING FEET STIFFNESS AND RESISTANCE TO CRACK FORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595048
COMMONLY MANUFACTURED ROTOR BLADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577951
ELECTRIC COMPRESSOR WITH SCROLL BACKPRESSURE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.9%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 869 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month