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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, and 4 – 21 are entitled to a priority date of April 17, 2023.
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 amending the title to incorporate two aftertreatment systems in series, each having a mixer.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 is missing a word before “the second mixer” in Line 2. For example, wherein the second mixer is located further…. or further comprising the second mixer [is] located further… or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnaird et al. (hereafter “Kinnaird” – US 2021/0301699) in view of Zheng et al. (hereafter “Zheng” – US 2009/0266064).
With regards to Claim 17:
Kinnaird discloses an exhaust aftertreatment system (Figures 1, 6) for an engine system (engine 12) comprising:
an exhaust conduit line (see Figure 6);
a first aftertreatment arrangement (Figure 6, Paragraphs 40, 41) disposed along the exhaust conduit line, the first aftertreatment arrangement including a first mixer (mixer 524), a first doser (doser 528), and a first catalytic substrate (SCR 522), the first mixer having a first transverse cross-dimension (as shown in Figure 6); and
a second aftertreatment arrangement (Figure 6, Paragraphs 40, 41) disposed along the exhaust conduit line downstream of the first aftertreatment arrangement, the second aftertreatment arrangement including a second mixer (mixer 570), a second doser (unlabeled but clearly shown in Figure 6 attached to second mixer 570), and a second catalytic substrate (SCR 572), and the second mixer having a second transverse cross-dimension, the second transverse cross-dimension being larger than the first transverse cross-dimension (as shown in Figure 6, mixer 570 is diametrically larger than mixer 524 – note that, as per MPEP 2125, while the drawings of Kinnaird are not disclosed as being drawn to scale, “the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art”. Kinnaird teaches multiple embodiments in Figures 6, 7, and 9 – 11 with multiple mixers. In Figure 7, first mixer 624 is described as being “immediately adjacent to the first SCR 622”, and depicted as such by having the mixer be a same transverse cross-dimension as the SCR 622. In Figures 6 and 9 – 11, the first mixers are described as being “spaced apart” from the other aftertreatment devices and shown having varying transverse cross-dimensions, with the mixers in Figures 9 and 10 being described as “close-coupled to the engine”, where there is less volume. Nevertheless, if the transverse cross-dimension were insignificant, Kinnaird would not have deliberately depicted the first mixers and the drawings as they are depicted, and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the first mixer in Figure 6 as being a smaller transverse cross-dimension than the second mixer);
Kinnaird is silent as to the specific structure of any of the mixers and thus does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first and second mixers includes a partition plate and an annular flange extending downstream from a perimeter of the partition plate, the partition plate defines a plurality of openings extending between an upstream side of the partition plate and a downstream side of the partition plate, and the partition plate including louvers extending downstream from at least some of the openings, and wherein the louvers form a ring around a central one of the openings. Zheng (Figures 1 – 5) teaches an exhaust aftertreatment system including a mixer (16), a doser (14), and a catalyst (18). The mixer (16) includes a partition plate (walls 20, 22) and an annular flange (flange 24) extending downstream from a perimeter of the partition plate (see direction of exhaust A in Figures 4, 5), the partition plate defines a plurality of openings (openings 32, 34) extending between an upstream side of the partition plate and a downstream side of the partition plate (see Figures 4, 5), and the partition plate including louvers (vanes 28, 30) extending downstream from at least some of the openings, and wherein the louvers form a ring around a central one of the openings (vanes 30 form a ring around openings 32, see Figure 3). Zheng teaches that this mixer provides “enhanced mixing and superior reduction efficiency from the system in comparison to more conventional mixers” *Paragraph 44). MPEP 2143B teaches it is obvious to substitute known elements for one another in order to yield predictable results. In this case, given the lack of structure in Kinnaird and the improved mixing and efficiency of Zheng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kinnaird by replacing the shape/structure of the mixers in Kinnaird with those of Zheng in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claim 18:
The Kinnaird modification of Claim 17 teaches the second transverse cross-dimension is larger than the first transverse cross-dimension by a factor of 1.5 (see Figure 6 of Kinnaird).
With regards to Claims 19 and 20:
The Kinnaird modification of Claim 17 teaches the first and second mixers are monolithically formed impact mixers (Paragraph 42 of Zheng: “the mixer 16 is a unitary component formed from a stamped piece of metal”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4 – 16 are allowed.
Claims 21 is 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.
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.
Nigro et al. (DE 102019107544) – see Figure 1, first doser 54, first mixer 40, first catalyst 30, second doser 38, second mixer 42, second catalyst 32. The first mixer 40 appears to be depicted closer to the first catalyst 30 than the second mixer 42 is to catalyst 32. However, the disclosure does not discuss any distance, nor do any of the other drawings provide any evidence of deliberate scale to Figure 1. Furthermore, Nigro fails to teach the interior/external features to the first and second mixer.
Bockmann (DE 102020103938) – see Figure 2, first doser 56, first mixer 68, first SCR 50, second doser 58, second mixer 70, second SCR 52.
Adelman (US 2022/0136424) – see Figure 2, first doser 70, first mixer 74, first SCR 52, second doser 72, second mixer 76, second SCR 62.
Fischer et al. (US 2014/0033686) – see Figures 1, 2, first mixer 19 and second mixer 21, with second mixer explicitly shown/described as being larger than the second mixer, however, no teaching of second doser, second SCR, and other components.
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
Monday, July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights