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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because “according to claim 1 further comprising” in lines 1-2 should be --according to claim 1, further comprising:-- (comma added after 1 and colon added after comprising).
Claim 4 is objected to because “further comprising” in lines 1-2 should be --further comprising:-- (colon added).
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“further comprising” in lines 1-2 should be --further comprising:-- (colon added);
“in exhaust gas” in line 4 should be --in the exhaust gas--.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“further comprising” in lines 1-2 should be --further comprising:-- (colon added);
“of exhaust gas” in line 4 should be --of the exhaust gas--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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.
This application includes 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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “contact device” in claims 1, 2, and 4-6 -- see Para 15 of the instant specification - “…the contact device 4 includes an injector 42, an overflow pipe 43, a plurality of baffle plates 44, an NOx sensor 45, a temperature sensor 46, and a partition wall 47..”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (U.S. 2010/0083643).
PNG
media_image1.png
686
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Hayashi discloses an exhaust purification device (10, exhaust gas purification apparatus - Para 42 (see Figs. 1, Fig .14, and Para 36)) comprising:
a filter (19, upstream-side oxidation catalyst - Para 43 (see Para 86 - “…it is possible to provide a particulate filter on which an oxidation catalyst is coated in place of the upstream-side oxidation catalyst…”)) configured to collect particulate matter in exhaust gas discharged from an internal combustion engine (5, internal combustion engine - Para 44)(see Figs. 1, 14, and Para 86);
a contact device (Modified Fig. 14(a) above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of contact device; element A corresponds to elements 11, 15, 15a, and 21)) configured to bring the exhaust gas discharged from the filter (19) into contact with a reducing agent (see Fig. 14(a) at element 31 an d Para 45 - “…reducing agent in the storage tank 31…”)(see Figs. 1, 14(a) and Paras 52 and 78); and
a catalyst (13, NOx catalyst - Para 43) extending in an axial direction (Modified Fig. 14(a) above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of axial direction)) and arranged in parallel with the filter (19)(see Modified Fig. 14(a) above), the catalyst (13) being configured to promote a reaction between the reducing agent and nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gas discharged from the contact device (Modified Fig. 14(a) above - A)(see Figs. 1, Modified Fig. 14(a) above, and Paras 44-49),
the contact device (Modified Fig. 14(a) above - A) being located in the axial direction (Modified Fig. 14(a) above - B) with respect to the catalyst (13)(see Figs. 1, Modified Fig. 14(a) above).
Re claim 2:
Hayashi discloses the exhaust purification device (10) according to claim 1 (as described above) further comprising
a guide pipe (71a, U-shaped exhaust pipe - Para 77) configured to guide the exhaust gas discharged from the filter (19) to the contact device (Modified Fig. 14(a) above - A)(see Modified Fig. 14(a) above and Paras 77-78).
Re claim 3:
Hayashi discloses the exhaust purification device (10) according to claim 2 (as described above), wherein the guide pipe (71a) is bent in a U-shape (see Modified Fig. 14(a) above and Para 77).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (U.S. 2010/0083643), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Stanavich et al. (U.S. 2015/0071822).
Re claim 4:
Hayashi discloses the exhaust purification device (10) according to claim 2 (as described above) further comprising
a filter housing portion (53, upstream-side exhaust pipe portion - Para 78) configured to house the filter (19)(see Fig. 14(a) and Para 78), wherein
the guide pipe (71a) is configured to be
Hayashi fails to disclose the guide pipe being configured to be detachably attached.
Stanavich teaches wherein a guide pipe (712, cylindrically-shaped section - Para 119 (see Figs. 24-30 and Para 119)) is configured to be detachably attached (see Figs. 27-28 and Para 119).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the attachment of Hayashi after that of Stanavich, thereby making the attachment of Hayashi a detachable attachment in the way taught by Stanavich, for the advantage of allowing easy removal for maintenance, cleaning, or replacement (Stanavich; Para 119).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (U.S. 2010/0083643), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nagaoka et al. (U.S. 2015/0071822).
Re claim 5:
Hayashi discloses the exhaust purification device (10) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Hayashi fails to disclose the exhaust purification device further comprising a nitrogen oxide sensor disposed near the contact device, the nitrogen oxide sensor being configured to measure nitrogen oxides in exhaust gas.
Nagaoka teaches an exhaust purification device (1, system for exhaust gas purification - Para 64) comprising a nitrogen oxide sensor (26, NOx sensor - Para 82) disposed near a contact device (16, passage for urea supply - Para 47)(see Fig. 1), the nitrogen oxide sensor (26) being configured to measure nitrogen oxides in exhaust gas (see Fig. 1 and Paras 53-54 - “…a NOx sensor…” and “…”Detected values of these sensors…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the exhaust gas purification device of Hayashi after that of Nagaoka, thereby including a nitrogen oxide sensor near the contact device of Hayashi in the way taught by Nagaoka, for the advantage of being able detect NOx such that engine control and urea injection can be performed by an engine control unit (Hayashi; Para 54).
Re claim 6:
Hayashi discloses the exhaust purification device (10) according to claim 1 (as described above).
Hayashi fails to disclose the exhaust purification device further comprising a temperature sensor disposed near the contact device, the temperature sensor being configured to measure a temperature of exhaust gas.
Nagaoka teaches an exhaust purification device (1, system for exhaust gas purification - Para 64) comprising a temperature sensor (24, exhaust temperature sensor - Para 53) disposed near a contact device (16, passage for urea supply - Para 47)(see Fig. 1), the temperature sensor (24) being configured to measure a temperature of exhaust gas (see Fig. 1 and Paras 53-54 - “…an exhaust temperature sensor…” and “…”Detected values of these sensors…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the exhaust gas purification device of Hayashi after that of Nagaoka, thereby including a temperature sensor near the contact device of Hayashi in the way taught by Nagaoka, for the advantage of being able detect exhaust temperature such that engine control and urea injection can be performed by an engine control unit (Hayashi; Para 54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ichikawa (U.S. 2009/0092525); Tomita et al. (U.S. 2020/0040791); Tomita (U.S. 2020/0072110).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights