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 .
Claim Objections
The limitation of “the refractory material comprise…” in claim 2 should be “the refractory material comprises…”.
The limitation of “the inorganic particles” in claim 11 should be “the plurality of inorganic particles”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 10 and 21–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patil et al., US 2023/0159401 A1 (“Patil”).
Regarding claim 10:
Patil discloses that a particulate filter (Patil Fig. 1, [0046]) comprising:
a honeycomb structure (Patil’s honeycomb structure 10, Patil Fig. 1, [0046]) comprising a matrix of intersecting porous walls (Patil’s intersecting walls 20, Id.) of a ceramic material (Patil discloses its honeycomb is of ceramic structure) that define channels (Patil’s cells 22, Patil Fig. 1, [0046]) extending from a first end (Patil’s first end face 16, Patil Fig. 1, [0046]) to a second end (Patil’s second end face 20, Patil Fig. 1, [0046]);
a plugging material disposed in at least a portion of the channels proximate at least one of the first end or the second end (Patil discloses its cells 22 could be plugged with a plugging material, Patil Fig. 1, [0048]),
the plugging material comprising at least about 50% by weight of a refractory material comprising alumina and zirconia (Patil discloses its cement skin 30 composition could be used for forming plug structures, and Patil discloses in its Table 1, a refractory material of second source inorganic material, which could be zirconia, with a composition of 5 to 15 wt%, Patil Table 1, [0112] and a large inorganic particles, which could be alumina, with a composition of large than 50%, Patil Table 1, [0062], the composition of alumina and zirconia sums up to at least 50%) and less than about 15% by weight titania relative to a total weight of the plugging material (Patil list Titania as an option for the second source inorganic particles, and the claim is mapped to the embodiment with Patil’s second source inorganic particles to be only Zirconia, the composition of titania is 0%, which reads on the claim, Patil [0112]).
Regarding claim 21:
Patil discloses that a green honeycomb structure (Patil’s honeycomb structure 10, Patil Fig. 1, [0046]), comprising
a matrix of intersecting walls (Patil’s plurality of intersecting walls 20, Patil Fig. 2, [0046]) of a ceramic material (Patil discloses its honeycomb is ceramic, Patil Fig. 1, [0046]) that define channels extending from a first end (Patil’s first end 16, Patil Fig. 1, [0046]) to a second end (Patil’s second end 18, Patil Fig. 1, [0046]) of the green honeycomb structure (10 of Patil);
a plugging cement mixture (Patil’s discloses a plugging structure, which can be made of the cement composition of cement skin 30, Patil [0067]) disposed in at least a portion of the channels (Patil’s cells 22, Patil Fig. 1, [0083]) at or proximate at least one of the first end or the second end (16 or 18 of Patil Fig. 1, [0046]),
the plugging cement mixture comprising:
a plurality of inorganic particles (Patil’s inorganic particle as shown in Patil Table 1, Patil Table 1, [0069]) comprising,
based on a total weight of the plurality of inorganic particles,
0.1% to 15% by weight titania (Patil discloses its second source of inorganic particles can be silica, alumina, titania, spinel, zirconia, or combinations thereof, Patil Table 1, [0055], Patil therefore discloses an embodiment of combination of titania and zirconia being its second source of inorganic particles, and since titania and zirconia sums up to be 5 to 15%, titania necessary have a weight percentage less than 15%, and falls within the claimed range ) and at least 50% by weight of a refractory material comprising alumina (Patil discloses at least 50% of third source inorganic particles, which could be alumina, Patil Table 1, [0062]) and zirconia (as discussed above, Patil discloses its second source of inorganic particles includes zirconia, which is the claimed refractory material, Patil Table 1, [0055]).
Regarding claim 22:
Patil discloses that the green honeycomb structure of claim 21, wherein an average particle diameter d50 of the refractory material is less than 20 µm (Patil discloses its second inorganic particles could have a mean particle diameter of about 50 nm to about 700 nm, which is equivalent to 0.05 micron to 0.7 microns, Patil [0135], and therefore falls within the claimed range of less than 20 micron).
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–6, 8–9 and 11–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Patil et al., US 2023/0159401 A1 (“Patil”) in view of Chatlani et al., US 2008/0307760 A1 (“Chatlani”).
Regarding claim 1:
Patil discloses that a plugging cement mixture (Patil discloses a plug structure that are formed of cement composition used to form cement skin 30, Patil Fig. 1, [0067]) for application to a honeycomb body (Patil’s honeycomb structure 10, Patil Fig. 1, [0046]), the cement mixture (according to Patil’s Exemplary Cement Composition A, Patil Table 1, [0069]) comprising:
a plurality of inorganic particles (Patil’s first source, second source and third source inorganic particles listed in Table 1, Patil Table 1) comprising, based on a total weight of the plurality of inorganic particles (other than inorganic particles, Table 1 discloses 0.1% to 5% organic binder, assuming the organic binder comprise 0.1 %, total weight of inorganic particles sums up 99.9%, which is close to 100%, and the examiner relies on the weight% shown in Table 1 as a weight percent based on the total weight of the plurality of inorganic particles), less than 15% by weight titania (Patil discloses its second source of inorganic particles includes at least one of silica, alumina, titania, spinel, and zirconia particles, so an embodiment with the second inorganic particles being zirconia particles, reads on the claims, which means 0% of titania and falls within the claimed range of less than 15% of titania) and at least 50% by weight of a refractory material comprising a first amount of alumina (Patil discloses its third source inorganic particles could be alumina with a larger than 50 wt%, Patil Table 1, [0062]) and a second amount of zirconia less than the first amount of alumina (Patil discloses its second source of inorganic particles could also include zirconia particles, where the second source of inorganic particles accounts for a total of 5% to 15% total weight, and therefore, Patil discloses a second amount of zirconia less than first amount of alumina, Patil [0112], Table 1);
an organic binder (as listed in Patil Table 1); and
a liquid vehicle (Patil discloses its inorganic particles could be in form of colloidal form, where inorganic particles are suspended within a suitable liquid, Patil [0051], the suitable liquid is the claimed “liquid vehicle”).
Patil does not explicitly disclose a pore forming agent.
In the analogous art of plugging cement mixture, Chatlani discloses a liquid vehicle and pore forming agent, Chatlani [0033]. Chatlani discloses the pore forming agent could absorb at least a portion of liquid vehicle contained within the plugging mixture and result in a volume transformation sufficient to at least partially offset any shrinkage that may otherwise occur due to liquid vehicle loss, Chatlani [0033]. It would therefore have been obvious to include Chatlani’s pore forming agent and liquid vehicle in Patil for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Patil discloses that the cement mixture of claim 1, wherein the refractory material comprises from 65% to 95% by weight of the plurality of inorganic particles relative to the total weight of the plurality of inorganic particles (Patil discloses at least 50% of alumina and 5% to 15% of zirconia, which sums up to at least 55-65% of the plurality of inorganic particles, overlapping with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness, MPEP 2144.05(I), Patil Table 1, [0112] and [0062]).
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Patil discloses that the cement mixture of claim 2, wherein the plurality of inorganic particles comprises less than 10% by weight titania relative to the total weight of the plurality of inorganic particles (as discussed in claim 1, Patil’s inorganic particles could be free of titania, which is 0% of titania, falls within the claimed range, Patil Table 1, [0112]).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Patil discloses that the cement mixture of claim 2, wherein the plurality of inorganic particles is substantially free of titania (as discussed in claim 1, Patil’s inorganic particles 0% of titania, which is substantially free of titania, Patil Table 1, [0112]).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Patil discloses that that the cement mixture of claim 2, wherein an average particle diameter d50 of the refractory material is less than 30 µm (Patil discloses its second inorganic particles, which is mapped to zirconia in claim 1, could have a mean particle diameter of about 50 nm to about 700 nm, which is equivalent to 0.05 micron to 0.7 microns, Patil [0135], and falls within the claimed range of less than 30 micron).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Patil discloses that the cement mixture of claim 5, wherein the refractory material comprises a first plurality of particles having an average particle diameter d50 of greater than 10 µm (Patil discloses its large inorganic particles could have a particle size of bigger than 10 microns, Patil [0062]) and a second plurality of particles having an average particle diameter d50 of less than 10 µm (Patil discloses its second inorganic particles, which is mapped to zirconia in claim 1, could have a mean particle diameter of about 50 nm to about 700 nm, which is equivalent to 0.05 micron to 0.7 microns, Patil [0135], and falls within the claimed range of less than 10 micron).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Patil discloses that the cement mixture of claim 1, wherein the pore forming agent comprises at least one of a starch, a resin, graphite, a sulfate, a nitrite, a nitrate or a carbonate (Chatlani discloses its pore forming material is starch, Chatlani [0033]).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Patil discloses that The cement mixture of claim 8, wherein the organic binder comprises at least one of polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl butyral, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, starch, methylcellulose, ethyl hydroxy ethyl cellulose, hydroxy butyl methylcellulose, hydroxy methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, hydroxyethyl methylcellulose, hydroxybutyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, or sodium carboxy methylcellulose (Patil discloses its organic binder as polyvinyl alcohol, Patil [0060]).
Regarding claim 11:
Patil disclsoes that the particulate filter of claim 10, wherein the plugging material is derived from a ceramic mixture, the ceramic mixture comprising:
a plurality of inorganic particles (Patil’s alumina, zirconia as mapped in claim 10 would be the claimed inorganic particles) comprising at least 50% by weight of the refractory material and less than about 15% by weight titania relative to a total weight of the inorganic particles (Patil’s alumina and zirconia accounts 100% of Patil’s refractory materials as mapped in claim 10, and there is 0% of titania which reads on the claim);
an organic binder (as listed in Patil Table 1); and
a liquid vehicle (Patil discloses its inorganic particles could be in form of colloidal form, where inorganic particles are suspended within a suitable liquid, which includes water, Patil [0051], the suitable liquid is the claimed “liquid vehicle”).
Patil does not explicitly disclose a pore forming agent.
In the analogous art of plugging cement mixture, Chatlani discloses a liquid vehicle and pore forming agent, Chatlani [0033]. Chatlani discloses the pore forming agent could absorb at least a portion of liquid vehicle contained within the plugging mixture and result in a volume transformation sufficient to at least partially offset any shrinkage that may otherwise occur due to liquid vehicle loss, Chatlani [0033]. It would therefore have been obvious to include Chatlani’s pore forming agent and liquid vehicle in Patil for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Patil discloses that the particulate filter of claim 11,
wherein the ceramic mixture comprises at least one of alumina, cordierite, aluminum titanate or silicon carbide (Patil discloses alumina, Patil Table 1, [0062]).
Claims 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Patil in view of Chatlani, and in further view of Ishihara et al., JP 2006110538 A (“Ishihara”).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Patil does not disclose that the particulate filter of claim 12, wherein the plugging material, as disposed in at least a portion of the channels and at least one of the first end or second end, comprises a plug strength of at least 10 N.
In the analogous art of honeycomb structure, Ishihara discloses a plug made of alumina, Ishihara p. 5, 3rd para. Ishihara discloses a plug strength of greater than 10 N, with an average of 19.1 N and 13.9 N, Ishihara Fig. 7, p. 8. Ishihara discloses such plug strength is excellent, Ishihara p. 8. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing for Patil’s plug to have a plug strength of Ishihara because a plug-strength of greater than 10 N is known in the art and such plug strength is praised as excellent.
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Patil discloses that the particulate filter of claim 13, wherein plugging material is substantially free of titania (as discussed in claim 11, the plugging material are mapped to alumina, zirconia and additives, which is substantially free of titania).
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Patil discloses that the particulate filter of claim 14, wherein the refractory material is alumina, Patil Table 1, [0062].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Patil.
Regarding claim 23:
Patil discloses that the green honeycomb structure of claim 21, wherein an average particle diameter d50 of the refractory material is from 1 µm to 10 µm (Patil discloses its large inorganic particles could have a diameter of greater than 1 μm, Patil [0138], overlapping the claimed range and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness; MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current rejection because the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant traverses the rejection with an argument that Backhaus-Ricoult fails to disclose in Table 1 a composition comprising zirconia, let alone a composition comprising an amount of alumina greater than an amount of Zirconia, Applicant Rem. dated Dec. 3, 2025 (hereinafter “Applicant Rem.”) p. 10. The applicant argues that Sato does not disclose that a plugging composition that “could be made of the same composition as the honeycomb structure, rather, Sato discloses that the fired plugs are made of “almost” the same composition as the honeycomb fire body, Id. at ps. 10–11. The applicant argues that Sato fails to disclose what aspects of the plug composition may vary from the honeycomb composition, Id.
The examiner points out that the current rejection relies on Patil in view of Chatlani, and therefore, applicant’s argument is moot.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776