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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (5 – 27 – 2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Beebe et al. (WO 2020028035 A1, with Translation Provided by US 20210299909 A1, hereinafter Beebe) does not teach that the first plurality of support fins and the second plurality of support fins forming grid pockets configured to support plugging material,
Beebe does not show the pressure sensor film 70 to comprise a grid structure.
Applicant argues that Beebe does not disclose that the sensors can provide support
Applicant argues that Beebe the double lines / matrix 72 a does not provided for intersections to form a gride structure.
Beebe makes no conclusion that the shape/length of the film or film/sensor has an impact on the ability to determine the pressure of the material flow.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Beebe / Beebe as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As detailed in the action of (2 – 27 – 2025) Beebe is shown to teach on ([0051]) that the plurality of sensors 72 are dispersed in a matrix 72 a such that at least four sensors
PNG
media_image1.png
266
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
surround each of the flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 (and holes 70 a of the sensor film 70). As such, as illustrated in (Fig. 5B) the matrix material 72 a with a plurality of sensors 72 is found to have comprise a first plurality of support fins and a second plurality of support fins that intersect to form grid pockets configured to support plugging material. Where the bottom two arrows provided show the matrix material 72 a with a plurality of sensors 72 while the top two arrows show where the matrix material is being supported by the matrix material 72 a with a plurality of sensors 72.
As detailed, in (Fig. 5A & Fig. 6) a side view is provided that shows that the pressure sensor film 70 and the matrix material 72 a with a plurality of sensors 72 both across the entire width of the flow control member and that both contribute to changing the depth or the length 84 a in the cylinder 84. Accordingly, (Fig. 5B) shows a font view of the pressure sensor film 70, which is shown to have a grid structure with openings / holes 70a. As such, the pressure sensor film 70 to comprise a grid structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
280
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As detailed in the side view provided above material 44 is found be resting / supported on top of the thickness / depth that provided by both the pressure sensor film 70 and pressure sensor 72 dispersed in a matrix 72 a. As such, the depth / thickness provided by both pressure sensor film 70 and pressure sensor 72 dispersed in a matrix 72 a are found to provide support for the material 44.
As detailed in Beebe ([0051]) states the plurality of sensors 72 are dispersed in a matrix 72 a such that at least four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 (and holes 70 a of the sensor film 70). As shown in (Fig. 5B), the double lines are assigned to be the matrix 72 a, the double having both horizontal and vertical varieties that form squares that have the sensors 72 being placed at the corners of said squares, and with the horizontal and vertical varieties forming the corner of said square, providing for a point in which the horizontal and vertical varieties intersect.
Beebe details in ([0056]) that the length 84a in the cylinder 84 can be set such that the backward pressure distribution of the plug of material 44 in the cylinder 84 can be measured by the pressure sensors 72 affixed to the pressure sensor film 70. As detailed in (Figs. 5 & 6) the length 84a is found to change when the thickness / depth of the pressure sensors 72 affixed to the pressure sensor film 70 changes. Thus, by providing a different thickness / depth to the pressure sensors 72 affixed to the pressure sensor film 70 the point in which the sensors 72 reads the backward pressure of the plug of material 44 in the cylinder 84, as denoted by arrows 44 c. Thus, is found to impact the ability to determine the pressure of the material flow and alter the pressure gradient.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Beebe / Beebe as modified.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show honeycomb body 100 could also haveing a mask coupled to an outlet end face 108 opposite the inlet end face 107 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Currently, claim 28 reads “…of the corresponding width.” It should read “of of the open-ended cavity.” For claim consistency as this is what is written in the other claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 25 is 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 25 recites the limitation "… the first plurality of fins…" and "… the second plurality of fins…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read "… the first plurality of support fins…" and "… the second plurality of support fins…", which applicant has sufficient antecedent basis for.
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.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 12-13 & 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beebe et al. (WO 2020028035 A1, with Translation Provided by US 20210299909 A1, hereinafter Beebe)Regarding claim 1,
A honeycomb plugging apparatus, comprising:
a plugging head comprising:
an open-ended cavity formed from a stationary end wall and a peripheral wall;
a piston positioned in a reservoir and moveable in a first direction;
a flow control member configured to slide in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and comprising a plurality of passages extending therethrough,
the flow control member positioned between the piston and the end wall; and
a support substructure provided in the open-ended cavity,
the support substructure comprising a grid positioned within the open-ended cavity,
the grid formed from a first plurality of support fins intersecting with a second plurality of support fins,
the first plurality of support fins and the second plurality of support fins forming grid pockets configured to support plugging material,
each support fin of the first plurality of support fins extending along a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity.
Beebe teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that (Figs. 5, 5A & 5B) are of a plugging apparatus with a movable plunger. Where the plugging apparatus acts as applicant’s plugging head.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0043]) teaches a step 340 of dispensing a plug of material 44 into the plenum 45. As illustrated in (Fig. 5 & 5A), the plenum 45 / cavity in which the material 44 is dispended into is formed by a flow plate 71, which acts as applicant’s stationary end wall and clamping portion 52 of the frame 94 acting as applicant’s peripheral wall. Highlighting, the arrow in the image provided points to the plenum 45 / cavity.
([0044]) teaches that a step 350 of moving a plunger 50 toward the flow plate 71 with a force (in the direction of arrow 81) to push the plug of material 44 through the plurality of flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 into the cylinder 84. Where the plunger 50 with flow plate 71 and actuator 57 provide for a piston positioned in a reservoir and moveable in a first direction.
([0047]) teaches the moveable member 76 is linearly moveable in the direction of arrow 73 (Fig. 5A) and moves with the aid of an actuator 77. Where the moveable member 76 acts as a flow control member configured to slide in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and comprising a plurality of passages extending therethrough. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 5 & 5A) the movement of the moveable member 76 is found to be orthogonal to the movement of the plunger 50 with flow plate 71 and actuator 57 and provides for control over the flow of the material.
As best illustrated in (Fig. 5 & 5A) the moveable member 76 is found to be positioned between the plunger 50 with flow plate 71. As such, the moveable member 76 / flow control member is positioned between the plunger 50 / piston and the end wall flow plate 71,
([0051]) teaches a pressure sensor film 70 can be disposed in the cylinder 84 on the flow plate 71, for instance within the plenum 45, e.g., on a face of the flow plate 71 within the plenum 45. ([0051]) adding that the pressure film 70 may be disposed on the moveable member 76 for having a flow control member 74 that comprises the moveable member 76. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 5 - 5B), the moveable member 76 and stationary flow plate 71 with the pressure sensor film 70 are found within the cavity. As such, pressure sensor film 70 is provided in the plenum 45 / cavity.
& h.) As noted above, ([0051]) teaches that the pressure sensor film 70 can comprise a plurality of pressure sensors 72 (e.g., a sensor film as supplied by Tekscan™, Inc.) that are equally dispersed across the face of the pressure sensor film 70 and a plurality of holes 70 a, each of the holes 70 a configured to coincide with the plurality of flow holes 75 in the flow plate 71. ([0051]) adding that the plurality of sensors 72 are dispersed in a matrix 72 a such that at least four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 (and holes 70 a of the sensor film 70). As such, an arrangement in which more than four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 is understood to be disclosed include an entirety of the surround each of the flow holes 75 being surround by sensors. As shown in (Fig. 5B), the pressure sensor film 70 is shown to comprise a grid structure with both horizontal members which act as applicant’s first plurality of support fins and vertical members which act as applicant’s second plurality of support fins formed of the matrix 72 a, which at intersecting at points the pressure sensors 72 are located. Recalling ([0051]), which states that the pressure film 70 may be disposed on the moveable member 76 for having a flow control member 74 that comprises the moveable member 76. As such, the moveable member 76 is understood to have the same structure as the flow plate 71 with the pressure sensor film 70, i.e., a grid structure with vertical members and horizontal members of the matrix 72 a, intersecting at points where the sensors 72 are found. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 4 & 5B) the flow plate 71 with the
PNG
media_image4.png
318
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
pressure sensor film 70, are shown to comprise a grid structure with vertical members and horizontal members of the matrix 72 a, intersecting at points where the sensors 72. As such, the moveable member 76 is also understood to comprise a grid structure with
PNG
media_image5.png
232
126
media_image5.png
Greyscale
both horizontal members which act as applicant’s first plurality of support fins and vertical members which act as applicant’s second plurality of support fins formed from the matrix 72 a.
As noted above in (f & g) the plurality of sensors 72 are dispersed in a matrix 72 a. Further, the matrix 72 a can comprise interconnections to electrically connect the sensors 72. Highlighting, recreated image (Fig. 5B) is provided with arrows pointing to the vertical members and horizontal members interconnecting to the sensors, and the sensor is within a square. Adding, a recreated image (Fig. 5A) shows the plurality of sensors 72 that are dispersed in a matrix 72 a from a side-view. Accordingly, the sensor dispersed in a matrix 72 a are found to provide a degree depth and thus configured to support plugging material.
As illustrated in (Fig. 5 & 5A) and noted above in (h) the sensor dispersed in a matrix 72 a are found to provide a degree depth and thus configured to support plugging material, with the supports found to extended along a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising a sealing surface disposed radially outwardly from an open end of the open-ended cavity,
the sealing surface is-configured to seal against an outer edge of a mask of a masked honeycomb structure.
Beebe teaches the following:
& b.) ([0053]) teaches that to clamp the mask 28, the first surface 53 is brought into contact with the outer portion 40 of the mask 28. As shown in (Fig. 5A) the side portion of the first surface 53 is found to be radially outwardly and in contact with the mask for sealing.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first plurality of support fins and the second plurality of support fins comprise planar elements arranged relative to flow passages formed in the end wall of the open- ended cavity.
Beebe teaches the following:
([0051]) teaches that the plurality of sensors 72 are dispersed in a matrix 72 a such that at least four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 (and holes 70 a of the sensor film 70). Further, the matrix 72 a can comprise interconnections to electrically connect the sensors 72. As illustrated in (Fig. 5, 5A & 5B) the matrix 72 a is found to form both the horizontal / first plurality of support fins and the vertical / second plurality of support fins, which is shown to be level with the planar sensor 70, from a side, cross-sectional view (Fig. 5 & 5A), and thus the matrix 72 a are also understood to comprise planar elements arranged relative to flow passages. Nevertheless, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the matrix 72 a forming planar the horizontal / first plurality of support fins and the vertical / second plurality of support fins, the case law for the change of shape may be recited.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 9,
Wherein at least some of the planar elements are aligned between the flow passages and
at least some of the planar elements are aligned in front of the flow passages.
Beebe teaches the following:
([0051]) teaches that the pressure sensor film 70 can comprise a plurality of pressure sensors 72/72a and a plurality of holes 70 a, each of the holes 70 a configured to coincide with the plurality of flow holes 75 in the flow plate 71. The sensors 72/72a can be configured to be proximate to one or more of the flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71. As illustrated in (Fig. 5A & 5B), the sensors 72 which are embedded in the matrix 72 a forming planar the horizontal / first plurality of support fins and the vertical / second plurality of support fins are found to be aligned between the flow passages.
([0051]) teaches that the pressure sensors 72/72a can be found on the moveable member 76 for embodiments having a flow control member 74 that comprises the moveable member 76. As illustrated in (Fig. 5), the sensors 72 which are embedded in the matrix 72 a forming planar the horizontal / first plurality of support fins and the vertical / second plurality of support fins are found to be aligned in front of the flow passages.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the support substructure extends at least half of an axial distance between the end wall and an open end of the open-ended cavity.
Beebe teaches the following:
([0056]) teaches that the backward pressure develops a pressure gradient that decreases as a function of distance from the mask 28 toward the flow plate 71, the length 84 a in the cylinder 84 can be set such that the backward pressure distribution of the plug of material 44 in the cylinder 84 can be measured by the pressure sensors 72 affixed to the pressure sensor film 70. ([0056]) gives a range from 2 mm to 100 mm for a length of the cylinder. ([0051]) teaches that the pressure sensor film 70 can comprise a plurality of pressure sensors 72 (e.g., a sensor film as supplied by Tekscan™, Inc.). As such, the axial length of the cylinder / distance of the sensor from the mask is understood to impact the ability of the sensor to determine the pressure of the material flow. As such, one would recognize (Figs. 5, A-B) to either tailor the size of the cylinder, or thickness of film and/or sensor thus the position and/or the shape/length of film and/or sensor as a means for optimizing the sensor position and thus the sensors’ ability to function.
Accordingly, while Beebe is understood to teach optimizing the axial distance between the end wall / support substructure and the open end of the cavity. Nevertheless, if it is found that Beebe does not anticipate support substructure extension, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the case law for the change of size may be recited regarding the support substructure extends at least half of an axial distance. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 21 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein each support fin of the second plurality of support fins extends along a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity.
Beebe teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 5 & 5A) and noted above in (h) the sensor dispersed in a matrix 72 a are found to provide a degree depth and thus configured to support plugging material, with the supports found to extended along a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity.
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 21,
Wherein each support fin of the second plurality of support fins extends along greater than 80% of the corresponding width.
Beebe teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 5, 5A & 5B) and noted above the sensors 72 dispersed in a matrix 72 a are found to provide a degree depth and thus configured to support plugging material, with the supports found to extended along a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity, the support are shown to extends along the entirety of the corresponding width of the open-ended cavity, which is falls within applicant’s range of greater than 80% of the corresponding width. Accordingly, while Beebe is understood to teach support fins which extend along entirety of the corresponding width of the open-ended cavity. Nevertheless, if it is found that Beebe does not anticipate fin / support substructure extension. Nevertheless, if it is found that Beebe does not anticipate support, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the case law for the change of size may be recited regarding the support fins extends along greater than 80% of the corresponding width. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 23,
A honeycomb plugging apparatus, comprising:
a plugging head comprising:
an open-ended cavity formed from an end wall and
a peripheral wall orthogonal to the end wall;
a piston moveable in a first direction;
a flow control member positioned between the piston and the end wall, and
slidable in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction; and
a support substructure disposed in the open-ended cavity,
the support substructure comprising a first plurality of support fins intersecting with a second plurality of support fins to form a grid comprising grid pockets configured to support plugging material,
the support substructure extending at least half an axial distance between the end wall and an open end of the open-ended cavity.
Beebe teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that (Figs. 5, 5A & 5B) are of a plugging apparatus with a movable plunger. Where the plugging apparatus acts as applicant’s plugging head.
& c.) ([0043]) teaches a step 340 of dispensing a plug of material 44 into the plenum 45. As illustrated in (Fig. 5 & 5A) the plenum 45 / cavity in which the
PNG
media_image3.png
310
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
material 44 is dispended into is formed by a flow plate 71, which acts as applicant’s stationary end wall and clamping portion 52 of the frame 94 acting as applicant’s peripheral wall. Highlighting, the arrow in the image provided points to the plenum 45 / cavity.
([0044]) teaches that a step 350 of moving a plunger 50 toward the flow plate 71 with a force (in the direction of arrow 81) to push the plug of material 44 through the plurality of flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 into the cylinder 84. Where the plunger 50 with flow plate 71 and actuator 57 provide for a piston positioned in a reservoir and moveable in a first direction.
& f.) ([0047]) teaches the moveable member 76 is linearly moveable in the direction of arrow 73 (Fig. 5A) and moves with the aid of an actuator 77. Where the moveable member 76 acts as a flow control member configured to slide in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and comprising a plurality of passages extending therethrough. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 5 & 5A) the movement of the moveable member 76 is found to be orthogonal to the movement of the plunger 50 with flow plate 71 and actuator 57 and provides for control over the flow of the material.
([0051]) teaches a pressure sensor film 70 can be disposed in the cylinder 84 on the flow plate 71, for instance within the plenum 45, e.g., on a face of the flow plate 71 within the plenum 45. ([0051]) adding that the pressure film 70 may be disposed on the moveable member 76 for having a flow control member 74 that comprises the moveable member 76. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 5 - 5B), the moveable member 76 and stationary flow plate 71 with the pressure sensor film 70 are found within the cavity. As such, pressure sensor film 70 is provided in the plenum 45 / cavity.
As noted above, ([0051]) teaches that the pressure sensor film 70 can comprise a plurality of pressure sensors 72 (e.g., a sensor film as supplied by Tekscan™, Inc.) that are equally dispersed across the face of the pressure sensor film 70 and a plurality of holes 70 a, each of the holes 70 a configured to coincide with the plurality of flow holes 75 in the flow plate 71. ([0051]) adding that the plurality of sensors 72 are dispersed in a matrix 72 a such that at least four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 (and holes 70 a of the sensor film 70). As such, an arrangement in which more than four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 is understood to be disclosed include an entirety of the surround each of the flow holes 75 being surround by sensors. As shown in (Fig. 5B), the pressure sensor film 70 is shown to comprise a grid structure with both horizontal members which act as applicant’s first plurality of support fins and vertical members which act as applicant’s second plurality of support fins formed of the matrix 72 a, which at intersecting at points the pressure sensors 72 are located. Recalling ([0051]), which states that the pressure film 70 may be disposed on the moveable member 76 for having a flow control member 74 that comprises the moveable member 76. As such, the moveable member 76 is understood to have the same structure as the flow plate 71 with the pressure sensor film 70, i.e., a grid structure with vertical members and horizontal members of the matrix 72 a, intersecting at points where the sensors 72 are found. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 4 & 5B) the flow plate 71 with the
PNG
media_image4.png
318
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
pressure sensor film 70, are shown to comprise a grid structure with vertical members and horizontal members of the matrix 72 a, intersecting at points where the sensors 72. As such, the moveable member 76 is also understood to comprise a grid structure with
PNG
media_image5.png
232
126
media_image5.png
Greyscale
both horizontal members which act as applicant’s first plurality of support fins and vertical members which act as applicant’s second plurality of support fins formed from the matrix 72 a.
([0056]) teaches that the backward pressure develops a pressure gradient that decreases as a function of distance from the mask 28 toward the flow plate 71, the length 84 a in the cylinder 84 can be set such that the backward pressure distribution of the plug of material 44 in the cylinder 84 can be measured by the pressure sensors 72 affixed to the pressure sensor film 70. ([0056]) gives a range from 2 mm to 100 mm for a length of the cylinder. ([0051]) teaches that the pressure sensor film 70 can comprise a plurality of pressure sensors 72 (e.g., a sensor film as supplied by Tekscan™, Inc.). As such, the axial length of the cylinder / distance of the sensor from the mask is understood to impact the ability of the sensor to determine the pressure of the material flow. As such, one would recognize (Figs. 5, A-B) to either tailor the size of the cylinder, or thickness of film and/or sensor thus the position and/or the shape/length of film and/or sensor as a means for optimizing the sensor position and thus the sensors’ ability to function.
Accordingly, while Beebe is understood to teach optimizing the axial distance between the end wall / support substructure and the open end of the cavity. Nevertheless, if it is found that Beebe does not anticipate support substructure extension, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the case law for the change of size may be recited regarding the support substructure extends at least half of an axial distance. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 24 as applied to claim 22,
Wherein the first plurality of support fins extends along greater than 80% of a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity.
Beebe teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 5, 5A & 5B) and noted above the sensors 72 dispersed in a matrix 72 a are found to provide a degree depth and thus configured to support plugging material, with the supports found to extended along a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity, the support are shown to extends along the entirety of the corresponding width of the open-ended cavity, which is falls within applicant’s range of greater than 80% of the corresponding width. Accordingly, while Beebe is understood to teach support fins which extend along entirety of the corresponding width of the open-ended cavity. Nevertheless, if it is found that Beebe does not anticipate fin / support substructure extension, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the case law for the change of size may be recited regarding the support fins extends along greater than 80% of a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 26
A honeycomb plugging apparatus, comprising:
a plugging head comprising:
an open-ended cavity formed from an end wall and
a peripheral wall orthogonal to the end wall;
a piston moveable in a first direction;
a flow control member positioned between the piston and the end wall, and
slidable in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction; and
a support substructure disposed in the open-ended cavity,
the support substructure comprising a plurality of horizontal support fins arranged in parallel rows and configured to support plugging material,
the support substructure extending at least half an axial distance between the end wall and an open end of the open-ended cavity.
Beebe teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that (Figs. 5, 5A & 5B) are of a plugging apparatus with a movable plunger. Where the plugging apparatus acts as applicant’s plugging head.
& c.) ([0043]) teaches a step 340 of dispensing a plug of material 44 into the plenum 45. As illustrated in (Fig. 5 & 5A) the plenum 45 / cavity in which the
PNG
media_image3.png
310
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
material 44 is dispended into is formed by a flow plate 71, which acts as applicant’s stationary end wall and clamping portion 52 of the frame 94 acting as applicant’s peripheral wall. Highlighting, the arrow in the image provided points to the plenum 45 / cavity.
([0044]) teaches that a step 350 of moving a plunger 50 toward the flow plate 71 with a force (in the direction of arrow 81) to push the plug of material 44 through the plurality of flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 into the cylinder 84. Where the plunger 50 with flow plate 71 and actuator 57 provide for a piston positioned in a reservoir and moveable in a first direction.
& f.) ([0047]) teaches the moveable member 76 is linearly moveable in the direction of arrow 73 (Fig. 5A) and moves with the aid of an actuator 77. Where the moveable member 76 acts as a flow control member configured to slide in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and comprising a plurality of passages extending therethrough. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 5 & 5A) the movement of the moveable member 76 is found to be orthogonal to the movement of the plunger 50 with flow plate 71 and actuator 57 and provides for control over the flow of the material.
([0051]) teaches a pressure sensor film 70 can be disposed in the cylinder 84 on the flow plate 71, for instance within the plenum 45, e.g., on a face of the flow plate 71 within the plenum 45. ([0051]) adding that the pressure film 70 may be disposed on the moveable member 76 for having a flow control member 74 that comprises the moveable member 76. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 5 - 5B), the moveable member 76 and stationary flow plate 71 with the pressure sensor film 70 are found within the cavity. As such, pressure sensor film 70 is provided in the plenum 45 / cavity.
As noted above, ([0051]) teaches that the pressure sensor film 70 can comprise a plurality of pressure sensors 72 (e.g., a sensor film as supplied by Tekscan™, Inc.) that are equally dispersed across the face of the pressure sensor film 70 and a
PNG
media_image4.png
318
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
plurality of holes 70 a, each of the holes 70 a configured to coincide with the plurality of flow holes 75 in the flow plate 71. ([0051]) adding that the plurality of sensors 72 are dispersed in a matrix 72 a such that at least four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 (and holes 70 a of the sensor film 70). As such, an arrangement in which more than four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 is understood to be disclosed include an entirety of the surround each of the flow holes 75 being surround by sensors. As shown in (Fig. 5B), the pressure sensor film 70 is shown to comprise a grid structure with both horizontal members which act as applicant’s first plurality of support fins and vertical members which act as applicant’s second plurality of support fins formed of the matrix 72 a, which at intersecting at points the pressure sensors 72 are located. Recalling ([0051]), which states that the pressure film 70 may be disposed on the moveable member 76 for having a flow control member 74 that comprises the moveable member 76. As such, the moveable member 76 is understood to have the same structure as the flow plate 71 with the pressure sensor film 70, i.e., a grid structure with vertical members and horizontal members of the matrix 72 a, intersecting at points where the sensors 72 are found. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 4 & 5B) the flow plate 71 with the pressure sensor film 70, are shown to comprise a grid structure with vertical members and horizontal members of the matrix 72 a, intersecting at points where the sensors 72. As such, the moveable member 76 is also understood to comprise a grid structure with
PNG
media_image5.png
232
126
media_image5.png
Greyscale
both horizontal members which act as applicant’s first plurality of support fins and vertical members which act as applicant’s second plurality of support fins formed from the matrix 72 a.
([0056]) teaches that the backward pressure develops a pressure gradient that decreases as a function of distance from the mask 28 toward the flow plate 71, the length 84 a in the cylinder 84 can be set such that the backward pressure distribution of the plug of material 44 in the cylinder 84 can be measured by the pressure sensors 72 affixed to the pressure sensor film 70. ([0056]) gives a range from 2 mm to 100 mm for a length of the cylinder. ([0051]) teaches that the pressure sensor film 70 can comprise a plurality of pressure sensors 72 (e.g., a sensor film as supplied by Tekscan™, Inc.). As such, the axial length of the cylinder / distance of the sensor from the mask is understood to impact the ability of the sensor to determine the pressure of the material flow. As such, one would recognize (Figs. 5, A-B) to either tailor the size of the cylinder, or thickness of film and/or sensor thus the position and/or the shape/length of film and/or sensor as a means for optimizing the sensor position and thus the sensors’ ability to function. Accordingly, while Beebe is understood to teach optimizing the axial distance between the end wall / support substructure and the open end of the cavity. Nevertheless, if it is found that Beebe does not anticipate support substructure extension, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the case law for the change of size may be recited regarding the support substructure extends at least half of an axial distance. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 27 as applied to claim 26,
Wherein each horizontal support fin of the plurality of horizontal support fins extends along a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity.
Beebe teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 5 & 5A) and noted above in (h) the sensor dispersed in a matrix 72 a are found to provide a degree depth and thus configured to support plugging material, with the supports found to extended along a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity.
Regarding claim 28 as applied to claim 26,
Wherein each horizontal support fin of the plurality of horizontal support fins extends along greater than 80% of the corresponding width.
Beebe teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 5, 5A – 5B & Fig. 6) and noted above the sensors 72 dispersed in a matrix 72 a are found to provide a degree depth and thus configured to support plugging material, with the supports found to extended along a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity, the supports are shown to extends along the entirety of the corresponding width of the open-ended cavity, which is falls within applicant’s range of greater than 80% of the corresponding width. Accordingly, while Beebe is understood to teach support fins which extend along entirety of the corresponding width of the open-ended cavity. Nevertheless, if it is found that Beebe does not anticipate fin / support substructure extension. The case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the case law for the change of size may be recited regarding support fins extends along greater than 80% of a corresponding width of the open-ended cavity. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144. It should be noted that ([0056]) teaches that a backward pressure develops a pressure gradient that decreases as a function of distance from the mask 28 toward the flow plate 71, the length 84 a in the cylinder 84 can be set such that the backward pressure distribution of the plug of material 44 in the cylinder 84 can be measured by the pressure sensors 72 affixed to the pressure sensor film 70. The pressure gradient within the cylinder 84 is such that the pressure of the plug of material 44 at the flow plate 71 can be accurately measured (e.g., by the pressure sensors 72 of the pressure sensor film 70), given the relatively short length 84 a configured for the cylinder 84. Accordingly, as detailed in (Fig. 6) by changing the length of the pressure sensors 72, the length of the length 84 a is also altered. Recalling, as detailed above the pressure gradient decreases as a function of distance from the mask 28 toward the flow plate 71, i.e., the length of the length 84 a, thus by changing the length of the pressure sensors 72, the length of the length 84 a is also altered, therefore affecting the pressure gradient. Consequently, the case law for result effective variables may also be recited regarding the length of the pressure sensors 72.
Regarding claim 30 as applied to claim 26,
Wherein the support substructure further comprises a plurality of vertical support fins intersecting the plurality of horizontal support fins to form a grid comprising grid pockets configured to support plugging material.
Beebe teaches the following:
As noted above, ([0051]) teaches that the pressure sensor film 70 can comprise a plurality of pressure sensors 72 (e.g., a sensor film as supplied by Tekscan™, Inc.) that are equally dispersed across the face of the pressure sensor film 70 and a plurality of holes 70 a, each of the holes 70 a configured to coincide with the plurality of flow holes 75 in the flow plate 71. ([0051]) adding that the plurality of sensors 72 are dispersed in a matrix 72 a such that at least four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 of the flow plate 71 (and holes 70 a of the sensor film 70). As such, an arrangement in which more than four sensors surround each of the flow holes 75 is understood to be disclosed include an entirety of the surround each of the flow holes 75 being surround by sensors. As shown in (Fig. 5B), the pressure sensor film 70 is shown to comprise a grid structure with both horizontal members which act as applicant’s first plurality of support fins and vertical members which act as applicant’s second plurality of support fins formed of the matrix 72 a, which at intersecting at points the pressure sensors 72 are located. Recalling ([0051]), which states that the pressure film 70 may be disposed on the moveable member 76 for having a flow control member 74 that comprises the moveable member 76. As such, the moveable member 76 is understood to have the same structure as the flow plate 71 with the pressure sensor film 70, i.e., a grid structure with vertical members and horizontal members of the matrix 72 a, intersecting at points where the sensors 72 are found. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 4 & 5B) the flow plate 71 with the
PNG
media_image4.png
318
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
pressure sensor film 70, are shown to comprise a grid structure with vertical members and horizontal members of the matrix 72 a, intersecting at points where the sensors 72. As such, the moveable member 76 is also understood to comprise a grid structure with
PNG
media_image5.png
232
126
media_image5.png
Greyscale
both horizontal members which act as applicant’s first plurality of support fins and vertical members which act as applicant’s second plurality of support fins formed from the matrix 72 a.
B.) Claim(s) 25 & 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beebe and in further view of Belmonte et al. (US 4557962 A, hereinafter Belmonte) Regarding claim 25 as applied to claim 22,
Wherein the first plurality of fins and the second plurality of fins are disposed in slots formed in the end wall.
Regarding Claim 25, Beebe as modified by is silent on the support fins being disposed in slots formed in the end wall. In analogous art for a honeycomb plugging apparatus, (Abstract), Belmonte suggests details regarding the support fins being disposed in slots formed in the end wall, and in this regard, Belmonte teaches the following:
(Col. 3, lines 43 – 49) teaches that a rigid member is provided with a plurality of hollow tubes 24 extending through it and protruding from one of its outer surfaces. The tubes are positioned with respect to one another across the member and sized so as to coincide with and extend into the ends of selected cells of a honeycomb structure when the member is fitted against an end face of the structure. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4), the hollow tubes 24 are found to be provided in holes / slots formed in the end wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a filled honeycomb of Beebe. By modifying the support fins to such that they are disposed within a hole / slots formed in the end wall, as taught by Belmonte. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement support fins being disposed within a hole / slots formed in the end wall as it provides for feeding plugging material through the tubes 24, as is indicated by the arrows 26 in (Fig. 4), thus the plugging material is supported by the tubes 24, (Col. 6, lines 27 – 30). Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 29 as applied to claim 26,
Wherein the plurality of horizontal support fins are disposed in slots formed in the end wall.
Regarding Claim 25, Beebe as modified by is silent on the support fins being disposed in slots formed in the end wall. In analogous art for a honeycomb plugging apparatus, (Abstract), Belmonte suggests details regarding the support fins being disposed in slots formed in the end wall, and in this regard, Belmonte teaches the following:
(Col. 3, lines 43 – 49) teaches that a rigid member is provided with a plurality of hollow tubes 24 extending through it and protruding from one of its outer surfaces. The tubes are positioned with respect to one another across the member and sized so as to coincide with and extend into the ends of selected cells of a honeycomb structure when the member is fitted against an end face of the structure. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4), the hollow tubes 24 are found to be provided in holes / slots formed in the end wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a filled honeycomb of Beebe. By modifying the support fins to such that they are disposed within a hole / slots formed in the end wall, as taught by Belmonte. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement support fins being disposed within a hole / slots formed in the end wall as it provides for feeding plugging material through the tubes 24, as is indicated by the arrows 26 in (Fig. 4), thus the plugging material is supported by the tubes 24, (Col. 6, lines 27 – 30). Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.