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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “bypass outlet conduit extends tangentially to the injection housing” as claimed in Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1
Line 12 recites “the bypass outlet conduit extends tangentially to the injection housing”. It is unclear from the specification how it is possible for the bypass outlet conduit to extend tangentially to the injection housing. A bypass outlet conduit that extends tangentially to the injection housing would be incapable of providing exhaust gas to the injection housing. Therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4-20
Claims 2 and 4-20 are rejected insofar as they are dependent upon a rejected base claim.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1
Line 12 recites “the bypass outlet conduit extends tangentially to the injection housing”. It is unclear how it is possible for the bypass outlet conduit to extend tangentially to the injection housing. A bypass outlet conduit that extends tangentially to the injection housing would be incapable of providing exhaust gas to the injection housing.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4-20
Claims 2 and 4-20 are rejected insofar as they are dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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) 1, 4-5, 7-9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al., US 2018/0283248, in view of Miazgowicz et al., US 9,243,550.
Regarding Claim 1
Upadhyay discloses an exhaust gas system (Upadhyay, Figure 1) comprising:
a turbocharger (13) comprising a turbine (116) configured to be coupled to an engine-turbine exhaust gas conduit (36, exhaust manifold), the turbine (116) comprising:
a bypass inlet conduit (90, upstream of (92)) configured to receive exhaust gas provided by the engine-turbine exhaust gas conduit (36) (Upadhyay, Figure 1),
a bypass valve (92, wastegate actuator) coupled to the bypass inlet conduit (90, upstream of (92)) (Upadhyay, Figure 1), and
a bypass outlet conduit (90, downstream of (92)) coupled to the bypass valve (92), the bypass outlet conduit (90, downstream of (92)) centered on a bypass outlet conduit axis; and
an injection housing (104) coupled to the turbine (116), the injection housing (104) configured to receive reductant (via injector (135)) and is defined by a radius R [it is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the injection housing would be cylindrical and therefore have a radius R] (Upadhyay, Figure 1).
However, Upadhyay does not explicitly disclose that either the bypass outlet conduit extends tangentially to the injection housing, or the bypass outlet conduit extends parallel to a first tangent of the injection housing, wherein the bypass outlet conduit axis is separated from the first tangent by a first radial distance T1, wherein the first radial distance T1 is at most 0.9R.
Miazgowicz teaches a bypass outlet conduit (202) that extends parallel to a first tangent of a passage (142) [the bypass outlet conduit (202) is coupled tangentially to a circumference (305) of the passage (142) and is therefore parallel to a first tangent of the passage (142) (Miazgowicz, Figure 3)], and that the bypass outlet conduit axis is separated from the first tangent by a first radial distance T1, wherein the first radial distance T1 is at most 0.9R (Miazgowicz, Column 6, Lines 23-44, Figure 4).
At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bypass outlet conduit of Upadhyay such that the bypass outlet conduit extends parallel to a first tangent of the injection housing, and that the bypass outlet conduit axis is separated from the first tangent by a first radial distance T1, wherein the first radial distance T1 is at most 0.9R as is taught by Miazgowicz in order to provide the advantage of producing a swirl within the injection housing.
Regarding Claim 4
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 1, wherein the injection housing is cylindrical [it is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the injection housing would be cylindrical] (Upadhyay, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 1. Upadhyay further discloses that the bypass outlet conduit (90, downstream of (92)) is coupled to the injection housing (104 (Upadhyay, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 1. Upadhyay further discloses that the injection housing (104) is centered on an injection housing axis (Hx, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Upadhyay below) (Upadhyay, annotated portion of Figure 1 below); the injection housing axis (Hx) is intersected by a vertical axis (Vx, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Upadhyay below) that is orthogonal to the injection housing axis (Hx) (Upadhyay, annotated portion of Figure 1 below); the vertical axis (Vx) extends through a top surface of the injection housing (104) (Upadhyay, annotated portion of Figure 1 below); and as Miazgowicz teaches that the bypass outlet conduit axis is not parallel to the vertical axis (Miazgowicz, Column 6, Liens 9-44, Figures 4-5), it would have been obvious that the combination of Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teaches that the bypass outlet conduit axis is not parallel to the vertical axis to tailor the direction of the bypass gasses.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Portion of Figure 1 of Upadhyay
Regarding Claim 8
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 1. Upadhyay further discloses that the injection housing (104) is centered on an injection housing axis (Hx, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Upadhyay above) (Upadhyay, annotated portion of Figure 1 above); the injection housing axis (Hx) is intersected by a vertical axis (Vx, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Upadhyay above) that is orthogonal to the injection housing axis (Hx) (Upadhyay, annotated portion of Figure 1 above); the vertical axis (Vx) extends through a top surface of the injection housing (104) (Upadhyay, annotated portion of Figure 1 above); and as Miazgowicz teaches that the bypass outlet conduit axis is parallel to a vertical axis of the passage (142) (Miazgowicz, Column 6, Lines 9-44, Figures 4-5), it would be obvious that the combination of Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teaches that the bypass outlet conduit axis is parallel to a vertical axis to tailor the direction of the bypass gasses.
Regarding Claim 9
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 1. Upadhyay further discloses a dosing module (135) coupled to the injection housing (104), the dosing module (135) having an injector (135) configured to provide the reductant into the injection housing (104), the injector (135) being centered on an injector axis (Upadhyay, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 17
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 9. Upadhyay further discloses that the injector (135) is downstream of the bypass outlet conduit (90, downstream of (92)) (Upadhyay, Figure 1).
Claim(s) 2, 6, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al., US 2018/0283248, in view of Miazgowicz et al., US 9,243,550, and further in view of Ogilvie, WO 2022/129923 A1.
Regarding Claim 2
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 1. However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet conduit are integrated in the turbine.
Ogilvie teaches a turbine of a turbocharger (Ogilvie, Column 10, Line 33) that includes a bypass conduit [transports bypass flow (520a, 520b)] and a bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 28 – Page 29, Line 1, Figure 7a). Ogilvie further teaches that the bypass conduit transports the bypass flow (520a, 520b) between the diffuser (504) and the turbine housing (506) to divert flow around the turbine wheel (508) via the bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] [therefore, the bypass conduit and bypass valve are integrated in the turbine] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 34 – Page 29, Line 7, Figure 7a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the bypass structure of Upadhyay such that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet conduit are integrated in the turbine as is taught by Ogilvie, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 6
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 1. However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose that the bypass outlet conduit is integrated within the turbine.
Ogilvie teaches a turbine of a turbocharger (Ogilvie, Column 10, Line 33) that includes a bypass conduit [transports bypass flow (520a, 520b)] and a bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 28 – Page 29, Line 1, Figure 7a). Ogilvie further teaches that the bypass conduit transports the bypass flow (520a, 520b) between the diffuser (504) and the turbine housing (506) to divert flow around the turbine wheel (508) via the bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] [therefore, the bypass conduit and bypass valve are integrated in the turbine] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 34 – Page 29, Line 7, Figure 7a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the bypass structure of Upadhyay such that the bypass outlet conduit is integrated within the turbine as is taught by Ogilvie, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 18
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 17. However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet valve are integrated in the turbine.
Ogilvie teaches a turbine of a turbocharger (Ogilvie, Column 10, Line 33) that includes a bypass conduit [transports bypass flow (520a, 520b)] and a bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 28 – Page 29, Line 1, Figure 7a). Ogilvie further teaches that the bypass conduit transports the bypass flow (520a, 520b) between the diffuser (504) and the turbine housing (506) to divert flow around the turbine wheel (508) via the bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] [therefore, the bypass conduit and bypass valve are integrated in the turbine] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 34 – Page 29, Line 7, Figure 7a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the bypass structure of Upadhyay such that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet conduit are integrated in the turbine as is taught by Ogilvie, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 10, 12-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al., US 2018/0283248, in view of Miazgowicz et al., US 9,243,550, and further in view of Greber et al., US 2017/0089246.
Regarding Claim 10
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 9. However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose that the bypass outlet conduit axis extends parallel to the injector axis.
Greber teaches a dosing module (15) coupled to the injection housing and configured to dose reactant into the injection housing (Greber, Figures 19-22), wherein an injector axis (axis from dosing module (15)) intersects the injection housing axis (L) (Greber, [0216], Figures 19-21).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Upadhyay/Miazgowicz such that the injector axis intersects the injection housing axis as is taught by Greber as being well known in the art in order to efficiently mix reductant with exhaust gas upstream of the SCR to optimize the performance of the SCR. Therefore, the combination of Upadhyay, Miazgowicz, and Greber teaches that the bypass outlet conduit axis extends parallel to the injector axis.
Regarding Claim 12
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 9. Miazgowicz further teaches that the bypass outlet conduit axis (303) is provided at an angle (302) less than, equal to, or greater than substantially 90 degrees (Miazgowicz, Column 6, Lines 9-22, Figure 4). However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose that the bypass outlet conduit axis intersects the injector axis and is separated from the injector axis by a radial angle α.
Greber teaches a dosing module (15) coupled to the injection housing and configured to dose reactant into the injection housing (Greber, Figures 19-22), wherein an injector axis (axis from dosing module (15)) intersects the injection housing axis (L) (Greber, [0216], Figures 19-21).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Upadhyay/Miazgowicz such that the injector axis intersects the injection housing axis as is taught by Greber as being well known in the art in order to efficiently mix reductant with exhaust gas upstream of the SCR to optimize the performance of the SCR. Therefore, the combination of Upadhyay, Miazgowicz, and Greber teaches that the bypass outlet conduit axis intersects the injector axis and is separated from the injector axis by a radial angle α, as the two axes are not in parallel with each other they would intersect.
Regarding Claim 13
Upadhyay, Miazgowicz, and Greber teach the exhaust gas system of claim 12. While Upadhyay, Miazgowicz, Greber do not explicitly disclose that the radial angle is between 45 degrees and 180 degrees, Miazgowicz teaches that the bypass outlet conduit axis (303) is provided at an angle (302) less than, equal to, or greater than substantially 90 degrees (Miazgowicz, Column 6, Lines 9-22, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the radial angle between 45 and 180 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 15
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 9. Upadhyay further discloses that the injection housing (104) is centered on an injection housing axis (Hx, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Upadhyay above). However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose that the injector axis intersects the injection housing axis.
Greber teaches an injection housing centered on an injection housing axis (L); a dosing module (15) coupled to the injection housing and configured to dose reactant into the injection housing (Greber, Figures 19-22), wherein an injector axis (axis from dosing module (15)) intersects the injection housing axis (L) (Greber, [0216], Figures 19-21).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Upadhyay/Miazgowicz such that the injector axis intersects the injection housing axis as is taught by Greber as being well known in the art in order to efficiently mix reductant with exhaust gas upstream of the SCR to optimize the performance of the SCR.
Regarding Claim 16
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 9. Upadhyay further discloses that the injection housing (104) is centered on an injection housing axis (Hx, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Upadhyay above). However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose that the injector axis does not intersect the injection housing axis.
Greber teaches an injection housing centered on an injection housing axis (L); a dosing module (15) coupled to the injection housing and configured to dose reactant into the injection housing (Greber, Figures 19-22), wherein an injector axis (axis from dosing module (15)) does not intersect the injection housing axis (L) (Greber, [0216], Figures 20 and 22).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Upadhyay/Miazgowicz such that the injector axis does not intersect the injection housing axis as is taught by Greber as being well known in the art in order to efficiently mix reductant with exhaust gas upstream of the SCR to optimize the performance of the SCR.
11. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al., US 2018/0283248, in view of Miazgowicz et al., US 9,243,550, and further in view of Hepburn et al., US 2011/0146267.
Regarding Claim 19
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 9. However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose the injector is upstream of the bypass outlet conduit.
Hepburn teaches a reductant injector (80) upstream of a bypass outlet conduit (Hepburn, [0025], Figure 1).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Upadhyay/Miazgowicz such that the injector is upstream of the bypass outlet conduit as Greber teaches that it well known in the art to inject reductant further upstream of a SCR catalyst in order to improve mixing of reductant with exhaust gases.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al., US 2018/0283248, in view of Miazgowicz et al., US 9,243,550, in view of Greber et al., US 2017/0089246, and further in view of Ogilvie, WO 2022/129923 A1.
Regarding Claim 11
Upadhyay, Miazgowicz, and Greber teach the exhaust gas system of claim 10. However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet conduit are integrated in the turbine.
Ogilvie teaches a turbine of a turbocharger (Ogilvie, Column 10, Line 33) that includes a bypass conduit [transports bypass flow (520a, 520b)] and a bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 28 – Page 29, Line 1, Figure 7a). Ogilvie further teaches that the bypass conduit transports the bypass flow (520a, 520b) between the diffuser (504) and the turbine housing (506) to divert flow around the turbine wheel (508) via the bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] [therefore, the bypass conduit and bypass valve are integrated in the turbine] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 34 – Page 29, Line 7, Figure 7a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the bypass structure of Upadhyay such that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet conduit are integrated in the turbine as is taught by Ogilvie, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 14
Upadhyay, Miazgowicz, and Greber teach the exhaust gas system of claim 13. However, Upadhyay and Miazgowicz do not explicitly disclose that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet conduit are integrated in the turbine.
Ogilvie teaches a turbine of a turbocharger (Ogilvie, Column 10, Line 33) that includes a bypass conduit [transports bypass flow (520a, 520b)] and a bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 28 – Page 29, Line 1, Figure 7a). Ogilvie further teaches that the bypass conduit transports the bypass flow (520a, 520b) between the diffuser (504) and the turbine housing (506) to divert flow around the turbine wheel (508) via the bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] [therefore, the bypass conduit and bypass valve are integrated in the turbine] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 34 – Page 29, Line 7, Figure 7a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the bypass structure of Upadhyay such that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet conduit are integrated in the turbine as is taught by Ogilvie, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al., US 2018/0283248, in view of Miazgowicz et al., US 9,243,550, in view of Hepburn et al., US 2011/0146267, and further in view of Ogilvie, WO 2022/129923 A1.
Regarding Claim 20
Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the exhaust gas system of claim 19. However, Upadhyay, Miazgowicz, and Hepburn do not explicitly disclose that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet conduit are integrated in the turbine.
Ogilvie teaches a turbine of a turbocharger (Ogilvie, Column 10, Line 33) that includes a bypass conduit [transports bypass flow (520a, 520b)] and a bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 28 – Page 29, Line 1, Figure 7a). Ogilvie further teaches that the bypass conduit transports the bypass flow (520a, 520b) between the diffuser (504) and the turbine housing (506) to divert flow around the turbine wheel (508) via the bypass valve [wastegate (not shown)] [therefore, the bypass conduit and bypass valve are integrated in the turbine] (Ogilvie, Page 28, Line 34 – Page 29, Line 7, Figure 7a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the bypass structure of Upadhyay such that the bypass inlet conduit, bypass valve, and bypass outlet conduit are integrated in the turbine as is taught by Ogilvie, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection(s) has been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments to the claims have initiated a new drawing objection.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection(s) has been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments to the claims have initiated new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Miazgowicz does not disclose the distinguishing features over Upadhyay as Miazgowicz teaches that compressed air in an exhaust gas system can be re-introduced into a compressor inlet in a tangential manner (Miazgowicz contains no teachings regarding how exhaust gases on the turbine side of an engine system should be handled). The Examiner is not convinced. Miazgowicz is relied upon to teach a bypass flow at an axis parallel to a first tangent in order to provide the advantage of producing a swirl within the injection housing. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The Applicant further argues that the operating conditions of Upadhyay and Miazgowicz are different and there is no suggestion in Miazgowicz that the operating conditions of the exhaust gases on the turbine side of the engine system require tangential delivery. The Examiner is not convinced. The conditions of Miazgowicz may not require tangential delivery, however, providing tangential delivery to enhance swirling within the system of Upadhyay would improve exhaust gas performance.
The Applicant further argues that Miazgowicz does not motivate the skilled person to modify Upadhyay as claimed, and would instead modify Upadhyay to include the compressor re-circulation arrangement of Miazgowicz. The Examiner is not convinced. Miazgowicz is relied upon to teach a bypass flow at an axis parallel to a first tangent in order to provide the advantage of producing a swirl within the injection housing. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The Applicant further argues that Ogilvie, Greber, and Hepburn do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies with regard to Upadhyay and Miazgowicz. Ogilvie, Greber, and Hepburn are not required to cure deficiencies as Upadhyay and Miazgowicz teach the claimed limitations.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights