DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 11/26/2025:
claims 1-4 and 7-11 are currently pending
claim 7 is amended
prior art grounds of rejection reapplying Bubb are presented herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bubb et al. (WO 2015/168530 A1), hereinafter referred to as BUBB.
Regarding claim 1, BUBB teaches a cement mixture for plugging a honeycomb body (paragraph [0088]: the cement mixture composition may be used for other applications relating to honeycomb bodies including for plugging at least some of the ends of the channels of the honeycomb bodies), the cement mixture comprising:
inorganic ceramic particles (paragraph [0055]: the inorganic filler material comprises at least one of ground cordierite and fused silica glass powder);
an inorganic binder (paragraph [0025]: inorganic binder materials);
an organic binder comprising at least one of methyl cellulose or hydroxyethyl cellulose (paragraph [0058]: the organic binder material may comprise one or more organic materials, such as methylcellulose);
a hydrophilic additive comprising at least one of polyethylene oxide (PEO) or polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) (paragraph [0058]: one or more organic materials, such as … polyethylene oxide);
an aqueous liquid vehicle (paragraph [0060]: the preferred liquid vehicle or solvent has included water); and
wherein the cement mixture exhibits a cement viscosity of less than 7000 Pa·s at a shear rate of less than 0.1/sec and greater than 25 Pa·s at a shear rate from 20/sec to 100/sec (Fig. 9: batch 8).
Regarding claims 2-4, BUBB teaches the cement mixture of claim 1, further comprising a solid component (paragraph [0025]: inorganic filler material) and a liquid component (paragraph [0025]: inorganic and/or organic binder and liquid vehicle), the solid component comprising the inorganic ceramic particles (paragraph [0055]: the inorganic filler material comprises at least one of ground cordierite and fused silica glass powder) and the liquids component comprising the inorganic binder, the organic binder and the aqueous liquid vehicle (paragraph [0025]: inorganic and/or organic binder and liquid vehicle). While BUBB is silent with respect to the liquid component further exhibiting a liquid viscosity
from 50 centipoise to 1500 centipoise at a shear rate of 0.001/sec to 0.007/sec (claim 2),
from 100 centipoise to 1000 centipoise at a shear rate of 0.001/sec to 0.007/sec (claim 3)
from 100 centipoise to 600 centipoise at a shear rate of 0.001/sec to 0.007/sec (claim 4),
BUBB teaches all constituents of the liquid component of claims 1-4. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Bes. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Therefore, the liquid component of the cement composition of BUBB would inherently have the same properties such as liquid viscosity from 50 centipoise to 1500 centipoise at a shear rate of 0.001/sec to 0.007/sec.
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUBB.
Regarding claim 7, BUBB teaches a cement mixture for plugging a honeycomb body (paragraph [0088]: the cement mixture composition may be used for other applications relating to honeycomb bodies including for plugging at least some of the ends of the channels of the honeycomb bodies), the cement mixture comprising:
inorganic ceramic particles from 55% to 70% by weight (paragraph [0053]: the glass powder filler may comprise from 60% to 80% by weight of the total inorganic components of the cement). BUBB also discloses that the organic binder material may be present in the cement composition in an amount of from 0.1% to 10% by weight (paragraph [0058]), thus the total inorganic components comprise 90% to 99.9% by weight of the total cement composition, and the inorganic filler comprise 54% to 79.9% of the total cement composition, which overlaps with the claimed range;
an inorganic binder at 15% to 20% by weight (paragraph [0059]: inorganic binder material may be present in the cement composition in an amount from 2% to 35% of the total weight of inorganic solids). BUBB discloses that the organic binder material may be present in the cement composition in an amount of from 0.1% to 10% by weight (paragraph [0058]), and that the liquid vehicle content in the range from about 10% to about 25% of the total weight of the inorganic components of the cement mixture (paragraph [0060]), thus the inorganic solids comprise 65% to 89.9% by weight of the total cement composition, and the inorganic binder is present in an amount from 1.3% to 31% by weight of the total cement composition, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I);
an organic binder comprising at least one of methyl cellulose or hydroxyethyl cellulose at 0.25% to 1.25% by weight (paragraph [0058]: the organic binder material may comprise one or more organic materials, such as methylcellulose; the organic binder may be present in the cement composition in an amount from 0.1% to 10% by weight), BUBB teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range;
a hydrophilic additive comprising at least one of polyethylene oxide (PEO) or polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) (paragraph [0058]: one or more organic materials, such as … polyethylene oxide);
an aqueous liquid vehicle at 15% to 20% by weight (paragraph [0060]: the liquid vehicle content in the range from about 10% to about 25% of the total weight of the inorganic components of the cement mixture). BUBB also discloses that the organic binder material may be present in the cement composition in an amount of from 0.1% to 10% by weight (paragraph [0058]), thus the total inorganic components comprise 90% to 99.9% by weight of the total cement composition, and an aqueous liquid vehicle comprise 9% to 24.9% of the total cement composition, which overlaps with the claimed range.
While BUBB is silent with respect to the cement mixture exhibiting a cement viscosity of less than 7000 Pa·s at a shear rate of less than 0.1/sec and greater than 25 Pa·s at a shear rate from 20/sec to 100/sec, BUBB teaches all constituents of the cement mixture of claim 7 as set forth. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Bes. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Therefore, the cement composition of BUBB would inherently have the same properties such as a cement viscosity of less than 7000 Pa·s at a shear rate of less than 0.1/sec, and greater than 25 Pa·s at a shear rate from 20/sec to 100/sec.
Regarding claim 8, BUBB teaches the cement mixture of claim 7, wherein the inorganic binder comprises aqueous colloidal silica (paragraph [0059]: a suitable inorganic binder may comprise colloidal silica suspended in suitable liquid, such as water) and the inorganic ceramic particles comprise cordierite (paragraph [0055]: the inorganic filler material comprises at least one of ground cordierite).
Regarding claim 9, BUBB teaches the cement mixture of claim 7, further comprising a solid component (paragraph [0025]: inorganic filler material) and a liquid component (paragraph [0025]: inorganic and/or organic binder and liquid vehicle), the solid component comprising the inorganic ceramic particles (paragraph [0055]: the inorganic filler material comprises at least one of ground cordierite and fused silica glass powder) and the liquids component comprising the inorganic binder, the organic binder and the aqueous liquid vehicle (paragraph [0025]: inorganic and/or organic binder and liquid vehicle), and a ratio of the solids components to the liquid component is from 0.82:1 to 4:1 (as was discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above, the inorganic filler/solid component is present in an amount of 54% to 79.9% of the total cement composition). Thus, BUBB teaches a ration of the solid components to the liquid component from 54:66 to 79.9:20.1 or 0.82:1 to 3.98:1, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, BUBB teaches the cement mixture of claim 7, further comprising a solid component (paragraph [0025]: inorganic filler material) and a liquid component (paragraph [0025]: inorganic and/or organic binder and liquid vehicle), the solid component comprising the inorganic ceramic particles (paragraph [0055]: the inorganic filler material comprises at least one of ground cordierite and fused silica glass powder) and the liquids component comprising the inorganic binder, the organic binder and the aqueous liquid vehicle (paragraph [0025]: inorganic and/or organic binder and liquid vehicle). While BUBB is silent with respect to the liquid component further exhibiting a liquid viscosity from 50 centipoise to 1500 centipoise at a shear rate of 0.001/sec to 0.007/sec, BUBB teaches all constituents of the cement composition of claim 7 as set forth. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Bes. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Therefore, the cement composition of BUBB would inherently have the same properties such as liquid viscosity from 50 centipoise to 1500 centipoise at a shear rate of 0.001/sec to 0.007/sec.
Regarding claim 11, BUBB teaches the cement mixture of claim 7. While BUBB is silent with respect to the cement mixture exhibiting a cement viscosity greater than 25 Pa·s at a shear rate from 20/sec to 100/sec, BUBB teaches all constituents of the cement composition of claim 7 as set forth. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Bes. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Therefore, the cement composition of BUBB would inherently have the same properties such as a cement viscosity greater than 25 Pa·s at a shear rate from 20/sec to 100/sec.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office has failed to provide specific, concrete evidence to show that the cement mixture of BUBB “exhibits a cement viscosity of … greater than 25 Pa·s at a shear rate from 20/sec to 100/sec” as recited in claim 1 and, thus, has failed to establish inherency (see Remarks spanning paragraphs on pages 5-6).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, BUBB discloses the cement mixture composition that may be used for other applications relating to honeycomb bodies including for plugging at least some of the ends of the channels of the honeycomb bodies (see BUBB at paragraph [0088]). BUBB also discloses the cement mixture composition comprising the inorganic filler material including at least one of ground cordierite and fused silica glass powder, inorganic binder material, organic binder material comprising one or more organic materials, such as methylcellulose, polyethylene oxide, and water (see BUBB at paragraphs [0055], [0025], [0058] and [0060]). The examiner relied upon Fig. 9 (annotated Fig. 9 is presented below) to demonstrate the cement viscosity of the mixture disclosed by BUBB. For the purpose of the examination, the Fig. 9 has been annotated to illustrate the examiner’s interpretation of the data presented in Fig. 9. It is also noted that BUBB’s disclosure does not limit viscosity to the values presented in Fig. 9. BUBB explicitly teaches that cement compositions can exhibit viscosities well suited for forming an external skin over a honeycomb body; for example, compositions according to the embodiments herein can have an infinite shear viscosity, for example, be equal to or less than about 400 Pa·s at shear rate of 10/sec (see BUBB at paragraph [0067], and annotated Fig. 9 below). According to MPEP §2123(I), “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)”. Therefore, based on the BUBB’s disclosure regarding cement composition having an infinite shear viscosity and the viscosity of a few specific examples demonstrated in Fig.9, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the composition of BUBB can have cement viscosity overlapping with the claimed range.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, MPEP §2112.01(I) states: “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best”. Thus, since BUBB discloses composition that is identical to a cement composition as set forth in claim 1, the property of a composition such as cement viscosity is presumed to be inherent.
Applicant argues that BUBB teaches that the cement mixture may include 60-80 wt% glass powder filler (paragraph 53), 2-35 wt% inorganic binder material (paragraph 59), and 0.1-10 wt% organic binder material 10-25 wt% (paragraph 60); one skilled would have had a large number of choices in adjusting each of the components across the broad ranges of BUBB to arrive at a cement mixture (see Remarks received on 11/26/2025 spanning paragraphs on pages 7-8).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above, BUBB discloses composition comprising constituents in amounts which overlap with the claimed ranges. According to MPEP §2144.05(I) “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim”. Since ranges disclosed by BUBB overlap with the claimed ranges, and MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Therefore, it would have been within the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art to derive at the composition having a cement viscosity within the claimed range.
Therefore, the rejection of claims as being unpatentable over BUBB is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731