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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on April 3, 2026 has been received and considered. Claim 6 is canceled. Claim 8 is new. Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 3, 2026 have been fully considered. In particular, Applicant (at page 8, second paragraph) argues,
“… there is no disclosure in Kasai to teach or suggest that the coefficient of thermal expansion decreases stepwise in an order of the metal terminals, the pair of electrode layers, and the outer peripheral wall, as now recited in claim 1. To the contrary, Kasai discloses that the thermal expansion of the electrode part 21 is the same as, or close to the thermal expansion of the honeycomb structure part 4 (see Kasai, paragraph [0064]). Kasai also discloses that the materials of the electrode part are the same or close to the materials of the honeycomb structure part, which provides an increase in joining strength between the electrode part and the honeycomb structure part. As such, Kasai clearly teaches away from having the stepwise decrease in the coefficient of thermal expansion in an order of the metal terminals, the pair of electrode layers, and the outer peripheral wall, as now recited in claim 1. Ito fails to overcome the deficiencies of Kasai…”.
The argument is persuasive, and therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered prior art reference to Noro (US 2018/0280872 A1).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noro (US 2018/0280872 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2001/0003728 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Noro discloses an electrically heated carrier (i.e., an electric heating catalyst; see FIG. 1-4, paragraph [0003]) comprising a honeycomb structure (i.e., a conductive honeycomb structure 100; see paragraph [0033]) and metal terminals (i.e., a pair of metal terminals 103a,103b; see paragraph [0064]), the honeycomb structure 100 comprising:
a honeycomb structure portion (i.e., a columnar ceramic honeycomb structure portion 101; see paragraph [0033]) comprising an outer peripheral wall 102 and partition walls 110 disposed inside the outer peripheral wall and partitioning a plurality of cells 108 forming flow paths from one end surface 104 to the other end surface 106; and
a pair of electrode layers (i.e., a pair of first electrode layers 112a-1,112b-1 of the pair of electrode layers 112a,112b, respectively; see FIG. 4, paragraphs [0049], [0056]) provided on an outer surface 109 of the outer peripheral wall 102 so as to extend in a strip shape (i.e., in a band, reading on a strip shape; see FIG. 2, paragraph [0050]) along a direction in which the cells 108 extend and sandwich a central axis O of the honeycomb structure portion 101 (see FIG. 1, paragraph [0049]);
wherein a porosity (Pw) of the partition walls 110 is 30% to 55% (i.e., the porosity of each partition wall 110 may preferably be from 35 to 60%, and more preferably from 35 to 45%, see paragraph [0046]; for instance, in Example 1, a porosity of the partition walls is 45%, see paragraph [0098]);
the metal terminals 103a,103b are bonded to an outer surface of each of the pair of electrode layers (i.e., the metal terminals 103a,103b are bonded to the first electrode layers 112a-1,112b-1 via intervening second electrode layers 102a-2,102b-2 of the pair of electrode layers 102a,102b, respectively); and
a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) decreases stepwise in an order of the metal terminals 103a,103b, the pair of electrode layers 112a-1,112b-1, and the outer peripheral wall 102 (i.e., referring to TABLE 1, in Example 1, the CTE of the metal terminal was 12x10-6 (1/K) and the CTE of the first electrode layer was 7x10-6 (1/K); furthermore, the CTE of the outer peripheral wall was 4.5x10-6 (1/K), see paragraph [0109]; see also paragraph [0058]).
Noro (see paragraph [0045]) also discloses that the outer peripheral wall 102 ensures the structural strength of the honeycomb structure and prevents the fluid flowing through the cells 108 from leaking from the outer peripheral wall. Noro discloses that the thickness T of the outer peripheral wall 102 can be increased in order to increase the structural strength of the honeycomb structure; however, if the thickness is excessively high, the balance between the strengths of the outer peripheral wall and the partition walls 110 will be lost, and thermal shock resistance will be decreased. Thus, the thickness of the outer peripheral wall 102 is preferably 1.0 mm or less, more preferably 0.7 mm or less, and still more preferably 0.5 mm or less.
Noro, however, fails to disclose that a ratio (Pw/Po) of the porosity (Pw) of the partition walls 110 to the porosity (Po) of the outer peripheral wall 102 satisfies: 1 < Pw/Po ≤ 1.8.
Ito et al. discloses a honeycomb structure (see FIG. 1-2 and paragraphs [0036]-[0038]) comprising: a honeycomb structure portion 1 comprising an outer peripheral wall 12 and partition walls (i.e., lattice walls 11) disposed inside the outer peripheral wall and partitioning a plurality of cells 10 forming flow paths from one end surface to the other end surface of the honeycomb structure portion 1.
Specifically, Ito et al. discloses that the honeycomb structure portion 1 is divided into two areas (see FIG. 2), including an outer area B comprising the outer peripheral wall 12 and an outer portion 112 of the partition walls 11, and an inner area A comprising an inner portion 111 of the partition walls 11. A thickness of the outer area B is not less than 1.2% of a distance between a center of the honeycomb structure portion 1 and the inner side of the outer peripheral wall 12 (see paragraph [0019]). Furthermore, the outer area B is made to be denser relative to the inner area A by configuring the outer area B to have a smaller porosity relative to inner area A, wherein the difference in porosity (ΔPr) between the outer area B and the inner area A is not less than 5% (see paragraphs [0014]-[0018], [0038]). For instance, the outer area B can have a porosity that is 5% less than the porosity of the inner area A (see Example, at TABLE 1 and paragraph [0046]). Thus, the honeycomb structure 1 comprises a ratio of the porosity (Pw) of the partition walls 11 to a porosity (Po) of the outer peripheral wall 12 that satisfies: 1 < Pw/Po ≤ 1.8.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a ratio of the porosity (Pw) of the partition walls to the porosity (Po) of the outer peripheral wall to satisfy: 1 < Pw/Po ≤ 1.8 in the honeycomb structure in the electrically heated carrier of Noro because the smaller porosity of the outer peripheral wall relative to the porosity of the partition walls would have allowed for the outer peripheral wall to be made denser, so that the outer peripheral wall functions as a reinforced portion with a higher mechanical strength, and, as such, the mechanical strength of the entire honeycomb structure can be maintained using thinner walls, and the inner partition walls would still have a high porosity as usual, as taught by Ito et al. (see paragraphs [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Noro further discloses that a material constituting the outer peripheral wall 102 and the electrode layers 112a-1,112b-1 comprises a silicon carbide-silicon composite material as the main component (i.e., in Example 1, at paragraph [0087], the honeycomb structure portion comprising the outer peripheral wall was made of a composite material formed from a ceramic raw material having a mass ratio of silicon carbide (SiC) powder to metallic silicon (Si) powder of 80:30; also, in Example 20, at paragraph [0115], the first electrode layer was made of a composite material formed from an electrode layer forming paste having volume ratios of TaSi2 powder to Si powder to SiC powder of 40:40:20).
Regarding claim 5, Noro further discloses that the honeycomb structure portion is an integrally formed product (i.e., the honeycomb structure portion 101 was integrally formed by molding a ceramic raw material using an extruder with a grid-like die structure to form a honeycomb green body having the outer peripheral wall and the partition walls, followed by steps of drying, electrode layer application, and firing; see paragraphs [0086]-[0097]).
Regarding claim 8, Noro further discloses an underlying layer (i.e., a second electrode layer 112a-2,112b-2, which is a stress relaxation layer; see FIG. 4, paragraph [0056]) disposed between the outer surface of each of the pair of electrode layers (i.e., between the outer surface of the first electrode layers 112a-1,112b-1) and each of the metal terminals 103a,103b, wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) decreases stepwise in the order of the metal terminals 103a,103b, the underlying layer 112a-2,112b-2, the pair of electrode layers 112a-1,112b-1, and the outer peripheral wall 102 (i.e., referring to TABLE 1, in Example 1, the CTE of the metal terminal was 12x10-6 (1/K), the CTE of the second electrode layer was 10x10-6 (1/K), and the CTE of the first electrode layer was 7x10-6 (1/K); furthermore, the CTE of the outer peripheral wall was 4.5x10-6 (1/K), see paragraph [0109]; see also paragraph [0058]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noro (US 2018/0280872 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2001/0003728 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasai et al. (US 2013/0284720 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Noro discloses a thickness (Te) of the electrode layers that is preferably from 0.01 to 5 mm, and more preferably from 0.01 to 3 mm (see paragraph [0052]), such as a thickness of 0.25 mm for the electrode layer 112a-1,112b-1 (i.e., the thickness of the first electrode layer in Example 1, in TABLE I). Noro also discloses a thickness (To) of the outer peripheral wall 102 that is preferably 1.0 mm or less, more preferably 0.7 mm of less, and still more preferably 0.5 mm or less (see paragraph [0045]).
Noro, however, fails to disclose that a thickness (Te) of the electrode layers 112a-1,112b-1, a porosity (Pe) of the electrode layers 112a-1,112b-1, a thickness (To) of the outer peripheral wall 102, and a porosity (Po) of the outer peripheral wall 102 satisfies the relationship: 0.25 ≤ (Po/To)/(Pe/Te) ≤ 1.0.
Kasai et al. discloses an electrically heated carrier comprising a honeycomb structure (100; see FIG. 1-3; paragraph [0035]) and terminals (i.e., electrode terminal projecting portions 22; see FIG. 6-7), the honeycomb structure 100 comprising:
a honeycomb structure portion (i.e., a honeycomb structure part 4) comprising an outer peripheral wall 3, and partition walls 1 disposed inside the outer peripheral wall and partitioning a plurality of cells 2 forming flow paths from one end surface 11 to the other end surface 12 of the honeycomb structure portion;
a pair of electrode layers (i.e., electrode parts 21 and 21) provided on an outer surface of the outer peripheral wall 3 so as to extend in a strip shape along a direction in which the cells 2 extend (i.e., the electrode parts 21 and 21 each comprise a band-like shape extending in a direction in which the cells 2 extend) and sandwich a central axis of the honeycomb structure portion (i.e., the electrode parts 21 and 21 are disposed on opposite sides of the honeycomb structure part 4 via a center O of the honeycomb structure part; see FIG. 3);
a porosity (Pw) of the partition walls 1 from 30% to 55% (i.e., preferably from 35 to 60%, and further preferably from 45% to 55%; see paragraph [0074]); and
the terminals 22 bonded to an outer surface of each of the electrode layers 21.
Specifically, Kasai et al. (see Examples 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 of TABLE 1) discloses that a thickness (Te) of the electrode layers, a porosity (Pe) of the electrode layers, a thickness (To) of the outer peripheral wall, and a porosity (Po) of the outer peripheral wall satisfies the relationship: 0.25 ≤ (Po/To)/(Pe/Te) ≤ 1.0. The results are shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the honeycomb structure to satisfy the relationship: 0.25 ≤ (Po/To)/(Pe/Te) ≤ 1.0 in the modified electrically heated carrier of Noro because a honeycomb structure having a thickness (Te) of the electrode layers, a porosity (Pe) of the electrode layers, a thickness (To) of the outer peripheral wall, and a porosity (Po) of the outer peripheral wall which satisfies the claimed relationship would have exhibited excellent heat shock resistance, as taught by Kasai et al. (see TABLE 1, paragraph [0170]).
Regarding claim 3, Noro fails to disclose that a porosity (Pe) of the electrode layers 112a-1,112b-1 is 30% to 55%.
The same comments with respect to Kasai et al. apply (see above). In addition, Kasai et al. discloses that a porosity (Pe) of the electrode layers 21 is especially preferably from 30% to 60% (see paragraph [0056]), for instance, a porosity of 40% (see Examples 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 in TABLE 1). Kasai et al. further discloses that, “In such a range of the porosity of each of the electrode parts, the heat capacity of the electrode part can be decreased. Therefore, the heat shock resistance of the honeycomb structure can be enhanced” (at paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the electrode layers to have a porosity of 30% to 55% in the modified electrically heated carrier of Noro because a porosity within this range would have decreased the heat capacity of the electrode layers and thereby enhanced the heat shock resistance of the honeycomb structure, as taught by Kasai et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noro (US 2018/0280872 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2001/0003728 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murata et al. (US 2013/0011305 A1).
Noro (see paragraphs [0001]-[0003]) discloses that the intended application of the electrically heated carrier is for purifying harmful substances such as HC, CO, and NOx contained in an exhaust gas discharged from an engine of a motor vehicle or the like. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure an exhaust gas purification device to comprise the modified electrically heated carrier of Noro. Noro, however, fails to disclose an exhaust gas purification device comprising a tubular metal pipe to accommodate the electrically heated carrier.
Murata et al. discloses an exhaust gas purification device (i.e., a catalytic converter device 12 to be attached to an exhaust pipe 10 of an internal combustion engine for the purification of its exhaust gas, indicated by arrow F1; see FIG. 1, paragraph [0024]) comprising:
an electrically heated carrier (i.e., a catalyst carrier 14, such as a honeycomb structure, electrically heated using a pair of electrode layers 16A,16B disposed on an outer peripheral wall of the catalyst carrier 14; the electrode layers 16A,16B having terminals 18A,18B respectively bonded to an outer surface of each electrode layer; see paragraphs [0025]-[0028]); and
specifically, a tubular metal pipe (i.e., a case cylinder 28 formed in a substantially circular cylinder shape by a metal such as stainless steel; see paragraphs [0029]-[0030]) accommodating the electrically heated carrier 14.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure an exhaust gas purification device to comprise a tubular metal pipe to accommodate the modified electrically heated carrier of Noro because the tubular metal pipe would have facilitated the mounting of the electrically heated carrier to an exhaust pipe of the internal combustion engine, and the tubular metal pipe would have also guided the flow of high-temperature exhaust gas from the internal combustion engine through the honeycomb structure for the purification of the exhaust gas, as taught by Murata et al.
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 JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights