DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claims 1 – 20 are entitled to a priority date of November 22, 2024.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests applicant amend the title to “exhaust evaporator disposed radially inside turbo section of exhaust conduit”, or the like.
Claim Interpretations Under 35 USC § 112
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
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.
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.
Similarly, an application may include 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.
The following Claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claims 1, 17, and 20: reductant dosing device – read as “a device (generic placeholder) for reductant dosing (function)…”
Claims 1, 17, and 20: an electric heating device (generic placeholder) configured to increase one or more of a temperature (function)…
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 17, and 20 recite a temperature Teva of a wall of the evaporator device, a temperature T2nd of the second portion of the exhaust gases, and a temperature Ttot of a mixture of the first portion and the second portion. The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear because these temperatures are already introduced in the section of each claim reciting the electric heating device, making it unclear whether the instances in the oxidation catalyst section refer to the same temperatures or are different temperatures. Examiner suggests applicant amend by reciting [[a]] the temperature Teva of a wall of the evaporator device, [[a]] the temperature T2nd of the second portion of the exhaust gases, and [[a]] the temperature Ttot of a mixture of the first portion and the second portion in the oxidation catalyst clause of each of these claims.
All other pending claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence on one of the rejected claims above.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 8, 14 – 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawell et al. (hereafter “Gawell” – US 2023/0019174) in view of Kerres et al. (hereafter “Kerres” – WO 2005/103459).
With regards to Claims 1, 17, and 20:
Gawell discloses a heating arrangement (Figures 1, 2) for an evaporator device (diffuser 60) configured downstream of a turbine rotor (rotor 18) of a turbo device (turbine 6, turbocharger 5), method thereof, and computer program product thereof, wherein
the turbo device (turbine 6, turbocharger 5) is configured at a combustion engine (engine 2) to receive and interact with exhaust gases output by the combustion engine (via exhaust conduit 4), and is connected to a downstream component (catalyst 10) of an exhaust treatment system by an exhaust conduit (exhaust conduit 8);
the evaporator device (diffuser 60, see Paragraph 37: “[t]he diffusor may also function as an evaporation device for reductant droplets deposited on surface of the diffusor from the distribution device”) has an annular shape (see Figure 2, diffuser is cone-shaped, which meets the definition of annular under BRI, see also Claim 2 of present claim set), and is configured radially inside of a turbo section of the exhaust conduit (see Figure 2, diffuser 60 at least partially fits within the turbine housing 12), such that
a first portion of the exhaust gases flows through the evaporator device (via exhaust gas outlet volume 16) and is mixed with a reductant being injected by a reductant dosing device (dosing pipe 32, see Figure 2, Paragraph 55) configured radially inside the evaporator device (as shown in Figure 2, pipe 32 located radially within diffuser 60) and
a second portion of the exhaust gases flows through a passage formed between an outer wall of the evaporator device and an inner wall of the exhaust conduit (see Figure 2, unlabeled volume between outer wall of the diffuser 60 and the inner wall of the outlet of turbine housing 12).
While Gawell teaches that the diffuser “may also function as an evaporation device for reductant droplets deposited on surface of the diffusor from the distribution device … and/or may be treated to optimize heat transfer to any deposited reductant droplets” (see Paragraph 37), Gawell does not explicitly teach an electric heating device or an oxidation catalyst and a hydrocarbon dosing device. Kerres (Figure 5) teaches an evaporator device (pipe element 50) located radially within an exhaust conduit (3), the evaporator device having a first portion of the exhaust gases (8) flow through the evaporator device and is mixed with a reductant (7) being injected by a reductant dosing device (6) configured radially inside the evaporator device (as shown in Figure 5) and a second portion of the exhaust gases flows through a passage formed between an outer wall of the evaporator device and an inner wall of the exhaust conduit (see Figure 5, unlabeled volume between outer wall of the pipe 5 and the inner wall of the exhaust conduit 3). Kerres goes on to teach an electric heating device (heating coil 10 receiving power from power supply line 14) configured to increase one or more of a temperature Teva of a wall of the evaporator device (Paragraphs 24, 30, 33), a temperature T2nd of the second portion of the exhaust gases (via contact/convection from wall of evaporator), and a temperature Ttot of a mixture of the first portion and the second portion downstream of the evaporator device (via increasing temperature of the wall of the evaporator, as described in Paragraphs 24, 30, and 33) by converting electric energy Eel (from power line 14) to thermal energy Eth and providing the thermal energy Eth to the wall of the evaporator device (Paragraphs 24, 30, and 33). Kerres teaches that the heating coil “prevents condensation of the reducing agent, the reducing agent evaporates more quickly and there is better mixing with exhaust gas. The higher exhaust gas temperature achieved by avoiding cooling via pipe walls also allows for improved hydrolysis decomposition of the added urea” (Paragraph 24). Furthermore, while not explicitly taught, examiner takes official notice that injection of a reductant and activation of the heating coil is widely known to be performed by an ECU or similar computer controlled component of the motor vehicle, such as the control unit discussed in Paragraph 43 of Gawell). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, given the teachings of Kerres, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gawell by adding a wound heating coil around the diffuser, as shown via the pipe element (5) in Kerres, and to control the injection of reductant and activation of the heating coil accordingly, in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claim 2:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the annular shape of the evaporator device is formed by one or more in the group of: a cylindric pipe; and/or a cone-shaped pipe having its base in a downstream direction F (see Figure 2 of Gawell, cone-shaped diffuser 60, with base, i.e. wider section, in a downstream direction).
With regards to Claim 3:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the turbo section of the exhaust conduit comprises one or more in the group of: a body of the turbo device around an outlet of the turbo device (see Figure 2 of Gawell, diffuser 60 located in body around an outlet of turbine 6); and/or a portion of the exhaust conduit extending downstream at most a length from an outlet of the turbo device, said length L being in an interval of 0 to 8 diameters of the exhaust conduit.
With regards to Claim 4:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the evaporator device extends at least partially along the turbo section of the exhaust conduit (see Figure 2 of Gawell, diffuser 60 extends along the turbo section of the exhaust conduit 8).
With regards to Claim 7:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the reductant dosing device is a turbo dosing device (see reductant distribution device 24, Figure 2 of Gawell) configured to distribute the reductant in an outlet of the turbo device by utilization of a rotation of the turbine rotor of the turbo device (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 56 of Gawell: “In operation, the distribution device 24 spins in unison with the turbine rotor 18 and shaft 20 whenever exhaust gas passes through the turbine 6. Reductant such as urea solution, upon being deposited to the distribution device 24 from the metering device 26, is dispersed in the exhaust gas passing through the turbine 6 by the spinning motion of the distribution device 24”).
With regards to Claim 8:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the reductant dosing device is configured downstream of the turbo device within the turbo section of the exhaust conduit (see Figure 2 of Gawell, the end of the injection pipe 32 is downstream of turbine rotor 18).
With regards to Claim 14:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the exhaust treatment system comprises one selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR 10, Figure 1 of Gawell); and the reductant dosing device, the evaporator device, and the heating arrangement are configured upstream of the selective catalytic reduction catalyst (as shown in Figure 2 of Gawell and upon modification with Kerres).
With regards to Claim 15:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches an exhaust treatment system configured to interact with exhaust gases output from a combustion engine (engine 2, Figure 1 of Gawell), the exhaust treatment system comprising: an evaporator device (diffuser 60, Figure 2 of Gawell); and a heating arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (heater of Kerres, see rejection of Claim 1).
With regards to Claim 16:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches a vehicle (vehicle 1, Figure 12 of Gawell) comprising: a combustion engine (engine 2, Figure 1 of Gawell); an exhaust treatment system configured to interact with exhaust gases output from the combustion engine, the exhaust treatment system comprising: an evaporator device (diffuser 60, Figure 2 of Gawell); and a heating arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (heater of Kerres, see rejection of Claim 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawell et al. (hereafter “Gawell” – US 2023/0019174) in view of Kerres et al. (hereafter “Kerres” – WO 2005/103459), further in view of Naseri et al. (hereafter “Naseri” – WO 2017/180114).
With regards to Claim 13:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 only teaches a single SCR (10, Figure 1 of Gawell) and does not explicitly teach the exhaust treatment system comprises a first selective catalytic reduction catalyst and a second selective catalytic reduction catalyst arranged downstream of the first selective catalytic reduction catalyst; and the reductant dosing device, the evaporator device, and the heating arrangement are configured upstream of the first selective catalytic reduction catalyst. Multiple successive SCRs are known in the art. Naseri (Figure 1) teaches an exhaust system including a first SCR (40) and a second SCR (50) arranged downstream of the first SCR (see Figure 1), and further teaches two dosers (20, 25) both upstream of both SCRs. Naseri teaches that the SCRs have different compositions (see abstract), enabling each to target specific exhaust gas constituents. MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, given the teachings of Naseri, it would have been obvious to modify Gawell as modified in Claim 1 by adding a second SCR downstream of the existing SCR, and having a second different composition in order to yield the predictable benefits described above. Upon modification, and the reductant dosing device, the evaporator device, and the heating arrangement are configured upstream of the first selective catalytic reduction catalyst, as already shown in the Gawell modification of Claim 1.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9 – 12, and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawell et al. (hereafter “Gawell” – US 2023/0019174) in view of Nakatani (JP 2005-127257).
With regards to Claims 1, 17, and 20:
Gawell discloses a heating arrangement (Figures 1, 2) for an evaporator device (diffuser 60) configured downstream of a turbine rotor (rotor 18) of a turbo device (turbine 6, turbocharger 5), method thereof, and computer program product thereof, wherein
the turbo device (turbine 6, turbocharger 5) is configured at a combustion engine (engine 2) to receive and interact with exhaust gases output by the combustion engine (via exhaust conduit 4), and is connected to a downstream component (catalyst 10) of an exhaust treatment system by an exhaust conduit (exhaust conduit 8);
the evaporator device (diffuser 60, see Paragraph 37: “[t]he diffusor may also function as an evaporation device for reductant droplets deposited on surface of the diffusor from the distribution device”) has an annular shape (see Figure 2, diffuser is cone-shaped, which meets the definition of annular under BRI, see also Claim 2 of present claim set), and is configured radially inside of a turbo section of the exhaust conduit (see Figure 2, diffuser 60 at least partially fits within the turbine housing 12), such that
a first portion of the exhaust gases flows through the evaporator device (via exhaust gas outlet volume 16) and is mixed with a reductant being injected by a reductant dosing device (dosing pipe 32, see Figure 2, Paragraph 55) configured radially inside the evaporator device (as shown in Figure 2, pipe 32 located radially within diffuser 60) and
a second portion of the exhaust gases flows through a passage formed between an outer wall of the evaporator device and an inner wall of the exhaust conduit (see Figure 2, unlabeled volume between outer wall of the diffuser 60 and the inner wall of the outlet of turbine housing 12).
While Gawell teaches that the diffuser “may also function as an evaporation device for reductant droplets deposited on surface of the diffusor from the distribution device … and/or may be treated to optimize heat transfer to any deposited reductant droplets” (see Paragraph 37), Gawell does not explicitly teach an electric heating device or an oxidation catalyst and a hydrocarbon dosing device. Nakatani (Figures 1 and 3) teaches an engine (1, Figure 1) including a turbo (6b) and an evaporator device/heating arrangement (inner pipe 22a with flow passage 22b, Figure 3) downstream of the turbo, wherein the evaporator device is annular and configured inside the exhaust conduit (see Figure 3, inner pipe 22a inside exhaust pipe 22), the evaporator device having a first portion (22b) for flow of exhaust gas, and a second portion (volume of catalyst 31) for flow of exhaust gas, wherein the heating arrangement comprises one or more in the group of: an electric heating device (Paragraph 24: “electric heater”, not shown) configured to increase one or more of a temperature Teva of a wall of the evaporator device, a temperature T2nd of the second portion of the exhaust gases, and a temperature Ttot of a mixture of the first portion and the second portion downstream of the evaporator device by converting electric energy Eel to thermal energy Eth and providing the thermal energy Eth to the wall of the evaporator device (see Paragraph 24, the electric heater heats the catalyst 31, which inherently would heat the second portion of exhaust gases and thus the combined downstream gases); and an oxidation catalyst (catalyst 31, Paragraph 24) configured at one or more parts of the outer wall of the evaporator device (see Figure 3, between outer wall of inner pipe 22a and inner wall of exhaust pipe 22), and a hydrocarbon dosing device (fuel injection pipe 30, Figure 3) configured in the passage to inject hydrocarbons into the second portion of the exhaust gases, such that one or more of a temperature Teva of a wall of the evaporator device, a temperature T2nd of the second portion of the exhaust gases, and a temperature Ttot of a mixture of the first portion and the second portion downstream of the evaporator device are increased by oxidation of the hydrocarbons at the oxidation catalyst in the passage (Paragraph 10: “the fuel introduced into the oxidation catalyst increases the temperature of the exhaust gas through an oxidation reaction”, see also Paragraphs 24, 28, 32). Nakatani teaches that an oxidation catalyst such as catalyst (31) placed upstream of the reforming catalyst (such as catalyst 23 in Nakatani, and the SCR of Gawell) increases the temperature of the exhaust gas in order to improve reforming efficiency downstream (Paragraph 10) and also “pre-converts NO in the exhaust gas to NO2, thereby improving the exhaust gas purification performance” (Paragraph 11). Nakatani further teaches an ECU (4) that is configured to control both the electric heater and the fuel injection (see Paragraph 36) to perform exhaust gas purification as necessary. MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, given the teachings of Nakatani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gawell by incorporating an electric heater, oxidation catalyst, and fuel injector into the diffuser structure of Gawell in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claim 5:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the oxidation catalyst comprises one or more in the group of: an oxidation catalyst configured on one or more parts of the outer wall of the evaporator device; and/or an oxidation catalyst configured on at least one substrate arranged in the passage and in thermal contact with the wall of the evaporator device (see Figure 3 of Nakatani, oxidation catalyst 31 located in passage between outer wall of inner pipe 22a and inner wall of exhaust pipe – upon modification, the catalyst would be located between the outer wall of diffuser 60 and the inner wall of the turbine housing shroud).
With regards to Claim 6:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the oxidation catalyst has a surface enlarging form (see depiction in Figure 3 of Nakatani, multiple layers) and comprises a catalytic coating (Paragraph 24 of Nakatani: “rhodium or the like on a zeolite carrier”).
With regards to Claim 9:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the hydrocarbon dosing device comprises one or more in the group of: at least one nozzle (injection valve 30, Figure 3 of Nakatani) configured such that the injected hydrocarbons are prevented from reaching an inside of the evaporator device (see angle of spray in Figure 3 of Nakatani, see also Paragraph 31 of Nakatani, which discusses spraying to only reach the catalyst 31 and prevent spray into the volume 22b and sticking of a control valve 32 due to fuel adhesion); at least one nozzle configured in the passage; at least two nozzles configured in the passage and distributed around a circumference of the outer wall of the evaporator device; at least one nozzle configured at a waste gate outlet into the passage; at least one nozzle connected to one or more annular distribution channels configured to distribute hydrocarbon to the at least one nozzle; and/or at least one nozzle connected to one or more distribution channels configured to distribute hydrocarbon to the at least one nozzle, each distribution channel comprising at least one circular section.
With regards to Claim 10:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches the heating arrangement comprises all of the electric heating device (Paragraph 24 of Nakatani: “electric heater”, not shown), the oxidation catalyst (catalyst 31, Figure 3 of Nakatani), and the hydrocarbon dosing device (injection valve 30, Figure 3 of Nakatani).
With regards to Claims 11 and 18:
The Gawell modification of Claims 1 and 17 teaches the heating arrangement is configured to increase one or more of the temperature Teva of the wall of the evaporator device, the temperature T2nd of the second portion of the exhaust gases, and the temperature Ttot of the mixture of the first portion and the second portion downstream of the evaporator device by utilization of the electric heating device (Paragraphs 10, 24, 28, 32 of Nakatani) in one or more situations in the group of when a temperature Tox of the oxidation catalyst is below an oxidation catalyst temperature threshold Tox_th; Tox < Tox_th (see Paragraph 36 of Nakatani: “As shown in Figure 7, first in step S701, the temperature value of the fuel reforming catalyst 31 is obtained based on the output signal from the reforming catalyst temperature sensor 35. Next, in step S702, it is determined whether or not this temperature is below a predetermined value. Since effective fuel reforming cannot be expected if the temperature of the fuel reforming catalyst drops, an acceptable range for the catalyst temperature is set, and its lower limit is set to a predetermined value. Therefore, this predetermined value serves as a threshold for determining the degree of the fuel reforming effect of the fuel reforming catalyst. If a positive result is obtained in step S702, the process proceeds to step S703, where the power to the electric heater built into the fuel reforming catalyst 31 is turned on to raise the temperature of the fuel reforming catalyst 31, and then the process proceeds to step S704”).
With regards to Claims 12 and 19:
The Gawell modification of Claims 1 and 17 teaches the heating arrangement is configured to increase one or more of the temperature Teva of the wall of the evaporator device, the temperature T2nd of the second portion of the exhaust gases, and the temperature Ttot of the mixture of the first portion and the second portion downstream of the evaporator device by utilization of the oxidation of the hydrocarbons at the oxidation catalyst (Paragraphs 10, 24, 28, 32 of Nakatani) in one or more situations in the group of when a temperature Tox of the oxidation catalyst is equal to or above an oxidation catalyst temperature threshold Tox_th; Tox ≥ Tox_th (see Paragraph 36 of Nakatani: “On the other hand, if the result in step S702 is negative, step S703 is omitted and the process proceeds to step S704.
Next, in step S704, the control valve 32 is opened to guide the exhaust gas to the fuel reforming catalyst 31, and at the same time, the fuel additive valve 30 injects fuel to perform a rich spike”, see also Paragraphs 38 and 39 of Nakatani).
With regards to Claim 15:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches an exhaust treatment system configured to interact with exhaust gases output from a combustion engine (engine 2, Figure 1 of Gawell), the exhaust treatment system comprising: an evaporator device (diffuser 60, Figure 2 of Gawell); and a heating arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (heater/catalyst of Nakatani, see rejection of Claim 1).
With regards to Claim 16:
The Gawell modification of Claim 1 teaches a vehicle (vehicle 1, Figure 12 of Gawell) comprising: a combustion engine (engine 2, Figure 1 of Gawell); an exhaust treatment system configured to interact with exhaust gases output from the combustion engine, the exhaust treatment system comprising: an evaporator device (diffuser 60, Figure 2 of Gawell); and a heating arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (heater/catalyst of Nakatani, see rejection of Claim 1).
Additional References
Please see attached PTO-892 form for additional references which are made of record but not relied upon for the current grounds of rejection.
Tsujimoto et al. (US 2011/0107749) – see Figure 2, evaporator 8 having hydrocarbon doser 5.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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 on (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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Thursday, July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights