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
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by US 8,501,104 to Honda et al. (Honda).
In Reference to Claim 14
Honda, see Fig.3, discloses:
An exhaust aftertreatment system for a vehicle, the exhaust aftertreatment system comprising:
a first housing 10 including a first housing inlet 11configured to be fluidly coupled with an engine of the vehicle and configured to receive exhaust gas from the engine;
a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) 13 disposed within the first housing, the DOC configured to receive the exhaust gas from the first housing inlet;
a diesel particulate filter (DPF) 14 disposed within the first housing, the DPF configured to receive the exhaust gas from the DOC;
a second housing 20 including a second housing inlet 21 configured to receive the exhaust gas from the first housing;
a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) 23 disposed within the second housing, the SCR configured to receive the exhaust gas from the second housing inlet; and an intermediate pipe fluidly coupling the first housing with the second housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,501,104 to Honda et al. (Honda) in view of US 2022/0099009 to Maganti et al. (Maganti).
In Reference to Claim 1
Honda discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
513
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A fire fighting vehicle comprising:
an exhaust aftertreatment system, see fig.3 including:
a first housing 10 including a first housing inlet 11 fluidly coupled with the engine and configured to receive the exhaust gas;
a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) 13 disposed within the first housing, the DOC configured to receive the exhaust gas from the first housing inlet;
a diesel particulate filter (DPF) 14 disposed within the first housing, the DPF configured to receive the exhaust gas from the DOC 13;
a second housing 20 including a second housing inlet 21 configured to receive the exhaust gas from the first housing 12;
a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) 23 disposed within the second housing 20, the SCR 23 configured to receive the exhaust gas from the second housing inlet; and
an intermediate pipe 30 fluidly coupling the first housing 10 with the second housing 20.
Honda does not disclose
a chassis, including a first frame rail and a second frame rail laterally spaced apart and extending in a longitudinal direction;
an engine supported by the chassis and configured to produce exhaust gas;
Maganti discloses
PNG
media_image2.png
588
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a chassis, including a first frame rail 104 and a second frame rail 106 laterally spaced apart and extending in a longitudinal direction;
an engine 102 supported by the chassis (see Fig.8) and configured to produce exhaust gas, see paragraph [0043] of Maganti.
At the time claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to includes frames as disclosed by Maganti, combine the teachings of Maganti with Honda, since this would enable the practitioner to identify that trucks are notoriously well known in the art that truck require chassis to support both the engine and the exhaust system.
In Reference to Claim 13
Honda Modififed discloses:
a front axle and a rear axle, wherein the exhaust aftertreatment system is positioned longitudinally between the front axle and the rear axle, see Fig.8 of Maganti.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,501,104 to Honda et al. (Honda) in view of US 2022/0099009 to Maganti et al. (Maganti) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 10,883,405 to Hornback et al. (Hornback).
In Reference to Claim 6 and 19
Honda modified does not discloses:
wherein the intermediate pipe includes a flexible section configured to permit relative movement between the first housing and the second housing.
Hornback discloses:
wherein the intermediate pipe 50 includes a flexible section configured to permit relative movement between the first housing 14 and the second housing 16.
At the time claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to to provide a flexible connection between both module, combine the teachings of Hornback with Honda, since this would enable the practitioner of the primary reference to practice the advantage of providing desired mounting flexibility in tight compartment which reduces stress during manufacturing and service of Honda aftertreatment system.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,501,104 to Honda et al. (Honda) in view of US 2022/0099009 to Maganti et al. (Maganti) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2025/0052180 to McCarthy
In Reference to Claim 9
Honda modified does not discloses:
wherein the exhaust aftertreatment system includes a heater configured to heat the exhaust gas.
McCarthy discloses a heater included in the after system.
At the time claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to include a heater, combine the teachings of McCarthy with Honda, since this would enable the practitioner of the primary reference to practice the advantage of controlling the thermal management of the exhaust of the aftertreatment system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-12, 15-18 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:
Claims 20 is allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the first housing is coupled to the first frame rail and the second housing is coupled to the second frame rail such that the first housing and the second housing are laterally adjacent to each other” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 2 and 15;
The prior art of record does not teach “wherein the chassis defines a central axis extending in the longitudinal direction and laterally centered along a width of the fire fighting vehicle, wherein the first housing is positioned on a first side of the central axis, and wherein the second housing is positioned on a second side of the central axis opposite the first side.” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 3 and 16; and
The prior art of record does not teach “wherein the SCR is a first SCR, and wherein the exhaust aftertreatment system includes a second SCR disposed within the second housing, the second SCR configured to receive the exhaust gas from the second housing inlet.” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 7.
The prior art of record does not teach “wherein the exhaust aftertreatment system includes a diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) tank positioned within a front wheel well or a rear wheel well of the fire fighting vehicle, the DEF tank configured to store a supply of DEF.” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 9.
The prior art of record does not teach “a cable support coupled to the chassis, the cable support extending (i) along at least a portion of a longitudinal length of the fire fighting vehicle and (ii) beneath the chassis; and a wire at least partially supported by the cable support beneath the chassis, the wire extending between an alternator of the engine and the heater” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 11.
The prior art of record does not teach “a pump system, wherein the first housing and the second housing are positioned below the pump system” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 12.
The prior art of record does not teach “wherein at least a portion of the wire is supported by the cable support such that the portion of the wire is positioned beneath the chassis; wherein the first housing is coupled to the first frame rail and the second housing is coupled to the second frame rail such that the first housing and the second housing are laterally adjacent to each other; and wherein the DEF tank is positioned within the front wheel well or the rear wheel well” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 20.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY AYALA DELGADO whose telephone number is (571)270-3452. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 III 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 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.
/ANTHONY AYALA DELGADO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights