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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/28/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1, last two lines states “a plate thickness t in a flat part and a concave-convex part is 0.1 to 0.5mm”. It is unclear if this means that the plate thickness is within this range and then forms a concave-convex part or if both of these have this thickness. Since the same plate is used for the entire filter, including the concave-convex parts, it will be treated to as applying to both, but clarification is required.
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(s) 1, 2, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hums (DE 19647400) and in view of Kurai (JP 2014/030791) and in view of Miyamoto (JP 2001070804).
Hums describes a catalyst for the reduction of NOx (title). The material is made up of a number of plates stacked in a holder with a catalytically active surface and each having repeating structures (abstract). The structure is shown in Fig. 1, where there is a gas inflow side and a gas outflow side (see Fig. 1, 8 and the other side is the outlet). Both the inlet and the outlets have a side that can be considered an edge (see Fig. 1). The plates are stacked and end at the same ends (see Fig. 1, see stacked plates). This can be considered to meet the features “the platy catalyst elements are piled so as to align the edges located on gas-inflow side and the edges located on either side of the platy catalyst elements” of Claim 1, lines 6-9). As to the structure of each plate, Fig. 2 shows that there is are flat portions and are wavy portions (see Fig. 2). As to the shape of those wavy portion, Hums explains that these sections can have different shapes with different angles (see page 4, lines 7-12, where the bends in the plates are beads or waves). This can be considered to meet the feature of “more than one concavo-convex part in the shape of platy convex strips on the upper and lower surfaces” of Claim 1, lines 10-13 (see Fig. 2 of Hume).
The convex strips are parallel (see Fig. 1) and can have an angle of about 60° degrees (page 4, lines 11-12). The plates are stacked (see Claim 1 of Hume).
As to the intersection points being from 0 to 16nm, Hums explains that the distance between the ridges (14) in Fig. 2 are spaced 20-200mm apart in a repeating pattern (see Claim 4 of Hums). Although 20nm is greater than 16nm, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Hume does not state that the first ridge starts from 20-200mm from the edge.
However, Fig. 1 shows that the first ridges are spaced from the end of the substrate (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first ridge will be from 20-200mm from the edge because Hume explains that this distance is repeating.
As to the feature, that a ridge of the platy convex strip on the upper surface of one of the platy catalyst elements intersects with a ridge of the platy convex strip on the lower surface of another of the platy catalyst elements adjacent or that at least one of the intersection points, Hums teaches that the plate on the upper surface intersection with the ridge of the trip on the lower surface of the lower plate (see Fig. 4, plate 19 with plate 11).
As to the oblique feature, Hums does not teach this feature.
Kurai teaches an exhaust gas purifying structure (title). The structure includes catalyst supported on a plate-shaped structure (pg 4, para 2). The support includes a plurality of layers (page 4, para 2) for which exhaust passes through (Fig. 2). The plates include ridges on the surface (page 4, para. 4 and Fig. 1b). As to the ridge shape, Kurai teaches that the shape of the protrusion can have a number of different shapes (page 4, last para). Kurai shows that the ridges can have a number of different shapes, to include how the ridges lean, which in some cases, is an oblique lean (see Fig. 5, b, c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to angle the ridges to lean, as taught by Kurai for use with the ridges of the plates in Hums because these are known and effective alternatives.
As to the concave-convex part, Hume shows that the plate is folded in a wave so that it possesses both a concave and a convex part (see Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4).
As to the plate thickness t in a flat part being 0.1 to 0.5mm, Miyamoto describes a catalyst structure for purifying exhaust gases (title). The catalyst is deposited on a flat plate that is bent (abstract) into alternating ridge structures (see Fig. 6b). The catalyst is useable for NOx reduction in exhaust gases (see para. 1). As to the thickness, Miyamoto describes cutting the plate so that it has a thickness of about 0.7mm (page 5, para. 22, lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a catalyst on a plate with a thickness of about 0.7mm, as taught by Miyamoto for use with the catalyst of Hums and Kurai because a plate thickness of this value is known to be effective for the use with a NOx catalyst and lead to predictable and expected results.
Although Miyamoto does not specifically describe a thickness of 0.5-0.1mm, the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 November 12, 2025