DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09/30/25. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 8 have been amended; no claims have been cancelled; and claims 18-19 have been added. Thus, claims 1-6 and 8-19 are presently pending in this application.
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.
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 18 and 19 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.
Newly presented claims 18 and 19 recite “each electrode layer of the pair of electrode layers is formed entirely from the same material”; however, claim 1 recites “wherein the pair of electrode layers are made of a metal or a mixture of a metal compound and oxide ceramics” whereas claim 8 recites “wherein the pair of electrode layers are made of a mixture of carbon and ceramics”. Accordingly, as claims 18 and 19 respectively depend from independent claims 1 and 8, the newly presented claim limitations of claims 18 and 19 contradict the independent claims (from which newly presented claims 18 and 19 depend) in that the independent claims recite that the electrode layers are made from a mixture of differing materials. 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 (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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Masuda (JP 2020059443)
With regard to claims 1 and 8, Masuda teaches A honeycomb structure (FIG. 1-3), comprising: a honeycomb structure portion including: an outer peripheral wall (112); a partition wall (113) arranged on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall, the partition wall defining a plurality of cells (115) each extending from one end face to other end face to form a flow path (FIG. 1-3); and a pair of electrode layers each consisting of one layer (120) (alternatively 120/122 can be considered an electrode layer) and arranged on a surface of the outer peripheral wall (112) of the honeycomb structure portion, the pair of electrode layers (120) (alternatively 120/122 can be considered an electrode layer) being provided so as to face each other across a central axis of the honeycomb structure portion (see FIG. 1-3), wherein the honeycomb structure portion comprises ceramics having an NTC property (“a honeycomb material that satisfies thermal conductivity, strength, and appropriate electric resistance, a material having NTC (Negative Temperature Coefficient) characteristics such as Si-bonded SiC or SiC is generally preferable.”, pg. 6, ln. 19-21 ), and the pair of electrode layers (120) (alternatively 120/122 can be considered an electrode layer) comprise a material having a PTC property (“For each electrode part 120, for example, an electrode containing at least one selected from Cu, Ag, Al and Si can be used. It is also possible to use an ohmic electrode capable of making ohmic contact with a PTC thermistor described later …The PTC thermistor 122 is provided. By having such a sandwich structure, the heat from the columnar honeycomb structure portion is quickly transferred to the PTC thermistor 122, so that when the columnar honeycomb structure portion overheats, the PTC thermistor 122 operates promptly and the electrode portion ”, pg. 6, ln. 31-49); wherein the pair of electrode layers are made of a metal or a mixture of a metal compound and oxide ceramics (cl. 1) ((“For each electrode part 120, for example, an electrode containing at least one selected from Cu, Ag, Al and Si can be used. It is also possible to use an ohmic electrode capable of making ohmic contact with a PTC thermistor described later …The PTC thermistor 122 is provided. By having such a sandwich structure, the heat from the columnar honeycomb structure portion is quickly transferred to the PTC thermistor 122, so that when the columnar honeycomb structure portion overheats, the PTC thermistor 122 operates promptly and the electrode portion ”, pg. 6, ln. 31-49); and wherein the pair of electrode layers are made of a mixture of carbon and ceramics (cl. 8); (“The ceramic raw material is a raw material of a portion which remains after firing and constitutes the skeleton of the PTC thermistor as ceramics. The ceramic raw material can be provided in the form of powder, for example. As a ceramic raw material, an oxide or carbonate raw material such as TiO 2 or BaCO 3 which is the main component of barium titanate can be used. Further, Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb and a semiconducting agent such as Lu, and a shifter on the low temperature side such as Sr, Sn and Zr. , (Bi-Na), (Bi-K), high temperature side shifters, Mn such as property improvers, oxides or carbonates, or oxalates that become oxides after firing. Good. Conductor powders such as carbon black and nickel may be added to control the conductivity.”, pg. 10, ln. 9-14).
With regard to claims 3 and 12, Masuda teaches each of the pair of electrode layers (120) (alternatively 120/122 can be considered an electrode layer) is provided so as to extend in an extending direction of the cells (115) on an outer surface of the outer peripheral wall (112)(see FIG. 1-3).
With regard to claims 4 and 13, it is submitted that Masuda inherently teaches a rate of an increase in electrical resistance of the honeycomb structure portion is from —80% to —10% as the structural elements and properties are the same as the cited prior art (see MPEP 2112).
With regard to claims 5 and 14, it is submitted that Masuda inherently teaches each of the pair of electrode layers has a thermal expansion coefficient higher than that of the honeycomb structure portion as the structural elements and the properties are the same as the cited prior art (see MPEP 2112)..
With regard to claims 6 and 15, it is Matsuda inherently teaches a rate of an increase in electrical resistance of each of the pair of electrode layers is from 2% to 40% as the structural elements and the properties are the same as the cited prior art (see MPEP 2112)..
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Masuda (JP 2020059443) in view of Kikuchi (JP 2014198318).
With regard to claims 2 and 11, Masuda teaches the invention as detailed above with regard to claim 1; however, the citation does not explicitly teach the limitation of the honeycomb structure portion has a porosity higher than that of each of the pair of electrode layers. However, Kikuchi from the same field of endeavor directed toward a honeycomb structure and method for producing the same teaches: the porosity of the electrode part is particularly preferably 5 to 20% (pg. 5, ln. 59-60) and the porosity of the honeycomb structure/partition walls 1 of the honeycomb structure portion 4 is preferably 35 to 60%, and more preferably 35 to 45% (pg. 7, ln. 63-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Masuda reference, such that the honeycomb structure portion has a porosity higher than that of each of the pair of electrode layers, as suggested and taught by Kikuchi, for the purpose of providing a desired electrical resistivity value (Kikuchi: pg. 5, ln. 22-24)
Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Masuda (JP 2020059443) in view of Taku (JP2014054934)
With regard to claims 9 and 16, Masuda teaches the invention as claimed; however, the citation does not teach an electrically heating support, comprising: the honeycomb structure according to claim 1; and electrode terminals electrically connected onto the pair of electrode layers of the honeycomb structure. However, Taku from the same field of endeavor directed toward a heater teaches terminal portions 22 connected to a pair of electrode layers 21 (FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Masuda reference, to include electrode terminals electrically connected onto the pair of electrode layers of the honeycomb structure, as suggested and taught by Taku, for the purpose of providing electrical contacts for connecting the subject device to another power source and/or another device.
With regard to claims 10 and 17, Masuda teaches An exhaust gas purifying device (FIG. 3 (“ The heater of the present invention can be used as an auxiliary heater of a vehicle that employs a vapor compression heat pump as a main heating device, and in that case, it may be assumed that air is not blown directly to the vehicle compartment as described above. In that case, the above-described "cabin" may be replaced with "a part of the ventilation pipe of the main heating device". The return pipe from the passenger compartment may be further branched to provide a path for exhausting air to the outside of the vehicle through a valve, but exhausting to the outside of the vehicle should be performed by the main heating device using a vapor compression heat pump. It may be done in conjunction with another exhaust system”, pg. 11, ln. 12-16), comprising: the electrically heating support according to claim 9; and a can body (see FIG. 3) for holding the electrically heating support.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nishigaki et. al. (JP 2014054934)
With regard to claims 1 and 8, Nishigaki teaches A honeycomb structure (FIG. 1-2), comprising: a honeycomb structure portion (4) including: an outer peripheral wall (3); a partition wall (11) arranged on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall (3), the partition wall defining a plurality of cells (2) each extending from one end face to other end face to form a flow path (FIG. 1-2); and a pair of electrode layers (21) arranged on a surface of the outer peripheral wall (3) of the honeycomb structure portion, the pair of electrode layers (21) being provided so as to face each other across a central axis of the honeycomb structure portion (see FIG. 1-2), wherein the honeycomb structure portion comprises ceramics having an NTC property (as the same materials are utilized as in the prior art citation, the honeycomb structure inherently exhibits an NTC property (see MPEP 2112): “honeycomb structure portion 4 is made of a material whose main component is ceramics, and generates heat when energized through a pair of electrode portions 21 and 21 bonded to the side surfaces of the honeycomb structure portion 4. Here, having ceramics as a main component means containing 50% by mass or more of ceramics.”, pg. 4, ln. 16-18), and the pair of electrode layers (21) comprise a material having a PTC property (as the same materials are utilized as in the prior art citation, the electrode layers inherently exhibit a PTC property (see MPEP 2112):); wherein the pair of electrode layers are made of a metal or a mixture of a metal compound and oxide ceramics (“Examples of the material of the electrode portion 21 include stainless steel, copper, nickel, aluminum, molybdenum, tungsten, rhodium, cobalt, chromium, niobium, tantalum, gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and alloys of these metals. it can. The electrode portion 21 is formed using a composite material such as a Cu / W composite material, a Cu / Mo composite material, an Ag / W composite material, a SiC / Al composite material, or a C / Cu composite material. Also good. “Cu / W composite” means a copper tungsten composite. “Cu / Mo composite” means a copper molybdenum composite. “Ag / W composite” means a silver-tungsten composite. “SiC / Al composite material” means a composite material of SiC and aluminum. “C / Cu composite” means a composite of carbon and copper.”, pg. 7, ln. 5-10); and wherein the pair of electrode layers are made of a mixture of carbon and ceramics; (“Examples of the material of the electrode portion 21 include stainless steel, copper, nickel, aluminum, molybdenum, tungsten, rhodium, cobalt, chromium, niobium, tantalum, gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and alloys of these metals. it can. The electrode portion 21 is formed using a composite material such as a Cu / W composite material, a Cu / Mo composite material, an Ag / W composite material, a SiC / Al composite material, or a C / Cu composite material. Also good. “Cu / W composite” means a copper tungsten composite. “Cu / Mo composite” means a copper molybdenum composite. “Ag / W composite” means a silver-tungsten composite. “SiC / Al composite material” means a composite material of SiC and aluminum. “C / Cu composite” means a composite of carbon and copper.”, pg. 7, ln. 5-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/25 have been fully considered and are addressed hereafter.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments at pgs. 6-7 of Applicant’s response, it is asserted that “the PTC thermistor layer makes it possible to prevent uneven current distribution by suppressing cu7rrent passing from the electrode layers through the honeycomb structure portion (see Matsuda, pg. 6, last full paragraph). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the asserted pair of electrode layers comprising PTC thermistor layer 122 and electrode layer 120 are separate layers which are required in the honeycomb structure of Matsuda…” It is respectfully submitted that the obviousness rejection asserted in the most recent office action explicitly states: “a pair of electrode layers (120) (alternatively 120/122 can be considered an electrode layer).” Accordingly, in the first instance of the aforementioned rejection, the Examiner explicitly indicates that element 120 of Matsuda satisfies this limitation singularly. As an alternative, the Examiner indicates that elements 120/122 can be construed as the claimed electrode layer. With regard to the newly amended claim limitation of each of the electrode layers consist of one layer, it is submitted that it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the electrode portion 120 and PTC thermistor into a single layer as such an adaptation would have been obvious as making the layers integral (see MPEP 2144 V.B – Making Integral).as such an adaptation would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice and is known in the art as a PTC thermistor with electrodes is a temperature-sensitive resistance using metal contacts (electrodes, often nickel alloy or silver/aluminum) bonded to a ceramic body. Furthermore, the Applicant has not identified any unpredictable and/or unexpected results resulting from the newly presented claim limitation of each electrode layer consisting of one layer. In view of the foregoing, it must be stressed (as indicated in MPEP 2141) that the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex particularly emphasized: "’the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that ‘[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. The Supreme Court stated that there are ‘[t]hree cases decided after Graham [that] illustrate this doctrine.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (1) ‘In United States v. Adams, . . . [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (2) ‘In Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., . . . [t]he two [pre-existing elements] in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (3) ‘[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.). The principles underlining these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent application claiming the combination of elements of prior art would have been obvious. The Supreme Court further stated that: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396…..” .
With regard to Applicant’s arguments at pgs. 7-9, it is asserted that “there is no disclosure in Matsuda to tech or suggest that the metals disclosed in lines 31-49 on page 6, and the carbon and ceramics disclosed in lines 9-14 of page 10 are materials having a PTC property….”, and additional comments are provided thereafter regarding the Applicant’s contention that Matsuda does not teach the claimed limitations related to the claimed PTC property. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s contentions as the Examiner provides multiple instances of a PTC property being taught in Matsuda as indicated in the most recent office action (and as reproduced above in the obviousness rejection).
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights