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 .
Examiner’s Comments
This is a second Non-Final because it includes a rejection on newly cited art other than information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p), of any claim not amended or amended in a way that does not necessitate a new ground of rejection by applicant or patent owner in spite of the fact that other claims may have been amended to require newly cited art.
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 7, 9, 13–14, 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakon et al., JP 10249124 A (“Sakon”)1.
Regarding claim 7:
Sakon discloses that a method for producing a fine particle filter (Sakon’s step of producing a filter with a filter layer, Sakon Fig. 1a, p. 2),
comprising: a step of preparing an aerosol by mixing ceramic particles and air (Sakon’s step where air A and ceramic fine particles B are mixed, Sakon Fig. 1a, p. 2);
a step of allowing the aerosol to pass through the inside of a flow channel of a wall-flow type filter having a porous wall (Sakon’s step where mixed air A and ceramic fine particles B are supplied via supply pipe 24 into the porous support 11, which is a honeycomb structure, Sakon Fig. 1a, p. 2);
a step of supplying water in an amount of 30 g/L or more and 300 g/L or less with respect to the volume of the wall-flow type filter to the ceramic particles and the wall-flow type filter (Sakon’s step of supply steam C, which Sakon discloses could also be water, to the porous support 11, Sakon Fig. 1b, ps. 2–3);
and a step of drying the wall-flow type filter (Sakon discloses that the porous support 11 having the layered body adsorbed thereon is then dried and fired, Sakon Fig. 1, p. 2).
Sakon does not explicitly disclose that the water is supplied in an amount of 30 g/L or more and 300 g/L or less with respect to the volume of the wall-flow type filter to the ceramic particles and the wall-flow type filter.
However, Sakon discloses in the step where water is used, a water injector 33 is attached to porous support 11 and water is supplied through water pipe 36 to the interior of the porous support 11. Sakon Fig. 1(c), p. 2. Sakon also discloses that introduced water is observed by a liquid level gauge 37, and when the liquid level reaches a predetermined height, the supply of water is stopped, and the water in the porous support 11 is quickly discharged, Sakon Fig. 1(c), p. 2. It is therefore concluded that the water supplied would be less than the porous support entire volume, i.e., the predetermined height has to be equal to or less than the height of the monolith structure as shown in Sakon’s Fig. 1(c). Assuming a honeycomb volume (including partition wall is Vh), the maximum amount of water the honeycomb structure could accommodate would be less than Vh, denote as (Vh’), because some of the partition wall portion of the honeycomb structure has to be considered. Water load could be calculated by Vh’* water density (1000g/L)/Vh, which would give a value less than 1000 g/L, such range overlaps with the claimed range of 30 g/L or more and 300 g/L or less, and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed water load range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a different in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 9:
Sakon discloses that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 7, wherein the step of supplying water includes a step of allowing a gas containing moisture to pass through the wall-flow type filter (Sakon discloses that the step of suppling water could alternatively be supplying steam, which is essentially gas containing moisture to pass through the wall-flow type filter, Sakon Fig. 1(b), p. 2).
Regarding claim 13:
While Sakon does not explicitly disclose that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 7, wherein an air stream passes through the porous wall of the wall-flow type filter during the step of allowing the aerosol to pass through the inside of the flow channel and also during the subsequent step of supplying water to the ceramic particles and the wall-flow type filter, Sakon does not disclose its steps are performed in vacuum, which means there would necessary be air flow accompanying the entire manufacturing process, and the suction device would cause air to flow through the inside of flow channel, Sakon Fig. 1(b), p. 2.
Regarding claim 14:
Sakon disclose that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 9, wherein the step of drying is by heating that is initiated following stoppage of the step of allowing gas containing moisture to pass through the wall-flow type filter (Sakon discloses that when the step of supply steam C is stopped, the layered body is “then dried and fired”, the fired process would necessarily involve heating, and such step is initiated following stopping of the supplying steam C, Sakon Fig. 1(b), p. 2).
Regarding claim 16:
As stated in claim 7, Sakon discloses in the step where water is used, a water injector 33 is attached to porous support 11 and water is supplied through water pipe 36 to the interior of the porous support 11. Sakon Fig. 1(c), p. 2. Sakon also discloses that introduced water is observed by a liquid level gauge 37, and when the liquid level reaches a predetermined height, the supply of water is stopped, and the water in the porous support 11 is quickly discharged, Sakon Fig. 1(c), p. 2. It is therefore concluded that the water supplied would be less than the porous support entire volume, i.e., the predetermined height has to be equal to or less than the height of the monolith structure as shown in Sakon’s Fig. 1(c). Assuming a honeycomb volume (including partition wall) is Vh, the maximum amount of water the honeycomb structure could accommodate would be less than Vh, denote as Vh’, because some of volume is occupied by the partition wall portion of the honeycomb structure. Water load could therefore be calculated by Vh’ multiply water density (1000g/L) and then divide the value by Vh, which would give a value less than 1000 g/L, such range overlaps with the claimed range of 40 g/L or more and 200 g/L or less, and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed water load range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention, i.e., as evidenced by multiple claimed ranges in claim 1, claims 16–17. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a different in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 17:
As stated in claim 7, Sakon discloses in the step where water is used, a water injector 33 is attached to porous support 11 and water is supplied through water pipe 36 to the interior of the porous support 11. Sakon Fig. 1(c), p. 2. Sakon also discloses that introduced water is observed by a liquid level gauge 37, and when the liquid level reaches a predetermined height, the supply of water is stopped, and the water in the porous support 11 is quickly discharged, Sakon Fig. 1(c), p. 2. It is therefore concluded that the water supplied would be less than the porous support entire volume, i.e., the predetermined height has to be equal to or less than the height of the monolith structure as shown in Sakon’s Fig. 1(c). Assuming a honeycomb volume (including partition wall) is Vh, the maximum amount of water the honeycomb structure could accommodate would be less than Vh, denote as Vh’, because some of volume is occupied by the partition wall portion of the honeycomb structure. Water load could therefore be calculated by Vh’ multiply water density (1000g/L) and then divide the value by Vh, which would give a value less than 1000 g/L, such range overlaps with the claimed range of 50 g/L or more and 100 g/L or less, and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed water load range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention, i.e., as evidenced by multiple claimed ranges in claim 1, claims 16–17. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a different in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 18:
Sakon discloses that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 7, wherein the step of drying is initiated after stoppage of the step of supplying water (Sakon discloses after water is supplied to its porous support 11, the layered body is then dried and fired, Sakon Fig. 1(c), ps. 2–3).
Regarding claim 19:
While Sakon does not explicitly disclose that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 7, wherein the step of supplying water is carried out at a temperature of 0 to 100°C, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand such water supplying step has to be less than 100 °C, because at 100 °C, water turns into steam. Sakon therefore discloses a range overlaps with the claimed temperature range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed temperature range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention, i.e., as evidenced by multiple claimed ranges in claims 19–20. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a different in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 20:
While Sakon does not explicitly disclose that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 7, wherein the step of supplying water is carried out at a temperature of 0 to 50°C it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand such water supplying step has to be less than 100 °C, because at 100 °C, water turns into steam. Sakon therefore discloses a range overlaps with the claimed temperature range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed temperature range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention, i.e., as evidenced by multiple claimed ranges in claims 19–20. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a different in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakon in view of Sato et al., US 2011/0262639 A1 (“Sato”).
Regarding claim 8:
Sakon does not disclose that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 7, wherein the aerosol has a density of 0.001 g/m3 or more and 1 g/m3 or less.
In the analogous art of honeycomb structure manufacturing, Sato discloses a similar step of supplying gas containing ceramic particles to honeycomb cell to allow ceramic particles to adhere to the surfaces of the cells, Sato Fig. 3, [0009]. Sato discloses it is preferred to have an aerosol density to be 1 g/m3 or more, Sato [0014]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Sakon to have an aerosol density of 1 g/m3 as disclosed by Sato because Sato discloses an aerosol density of 1 g/m3 allows ceramics particles to form bridges and therefore save time spent for the membrane formation, Sato [0024]. With such modification, modified Sakon would have an aerosol range overlap with the claimed aerosol density and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed aerosol density is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a different in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 15:
Sakon does not explicitly disclose that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 13, wherein the passage of the air stream through the wall-flow type filter includes sucking air from an end of the wall-flow type filter that is opposite to an inlet end of the wall-flow type filter to which the aerosol and water are supplied.
In the analogous art of honeycomb structure manufacturing, Sato discloses a similar step of supplying gas containing ceramic particles to honeycomb cell to allow ceramic particles to adhere to the surfaces of the cells, Sato Fig. 3, [0009]. Sato discloses a fan structure 34 configured to suck air current through the cells of the plugged honeycomb filter and Sato’s fan 34 is located opposite to an inlet end of the wall-flow type filter 30 to which the aerosol are supplied, Sato Fig. 3, [0097]. Sato discloses its design suppress scattering of particles to reduce waste and improves manufacturing environment, Sato Fig. 3, [0016]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Sakon to have a similar design for the benefits disclosed. Such design involves locating the fan at an opposite side of inlet of aerosol.
Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakon in view of Foerster et al., US 2021/0396167 A1 (“Foerster”).
Regarding claim 10:
Sakon does not disclose that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 7, including a step of washcoating an exhaust gas purification catalyst into the flow channel of the wall-flow type filter before the step of allowing the aerosol to pass through the inside of the flow channel of the wall-flow type filter.
Similar to modified Sakon, Foerster discloses a method of making wall-flow particulate filter. Foerster discloses a step of applying active coating made of catalytically active component in the channels, Foerster discloses the active coating is washcoat. Foerster Abstract and [0020]. Foerster discloses an additional step of applying dry powder-gas aerosol. Foerster Abstract. Foerster discloses such step simultaneously improve the catalytic activity and the degree of filtration efficiency with respect to the exhaust gas back-pressure. Id. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Foerster’s step of applying a washcoat made of catalytically active components, a step of washcoating an exhaust gas purification catalyst into the flow channel of the wall-flow type filter before the step of allowing the aerosol to pass through the inside of the flow channel of the wall-flow type filter for the benefits disclosed above.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Sakon discloses that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 10, wherein the step of washcoating produces an in-wall coating in the fine particle filter because Foerster discloses its catalytic coating could be a combination of on-wall coating and in-wall coating, Foerster [0004].
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Sakon discloses that the method for producing a fine particle filter according to claim 10, wherein the step of washcoating produces an on-wall coating in the fine particle filter because Foerster discloses its catalytic coating could be a combination of on-wall coating and in-wall coating, Foerster [0004].
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner drops the current rejection because the applicant provides a clear explanation of what the term “volume” means to avoid future confusion.
Prior Art Rejections
In view of applicant’s argument, a new ground of rejection based on Sakon is presented above. Since this new ground of rejection which was not necessitated by amendment to the claims, this is a second Non-Final Rejection. Applicant’s arguments regarding Fekety is therefore moot.
Conclusion
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
1 Sakon is the 6-page FOR dated May. 31, 2023. A copy of Sakon’s machine translation is provided with the Office Action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.