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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki (US 2009/0087353 A1), in view of Marra (US 4302495).
With respect to claim 1, Saiki discloses a mat material (0011) comprising a base mat - element 340 - containing inorganic fibers (0040, Fig. 1), having a first main surface and a second main surface (Fig. 1), and a sheet material – element 310 - disposed on the first main surface (0040, Fig. 1). Saiki is silent with respect to the sheet material being a stacked sheet material and having a configuration as recited in the claim. Marra discloses a mat material (col. 2, lines 28-35), comprising a sheet material being a stacked sheet material in which longitudinally oriented fibers and transversely oriented fibers are stacked (col. 4, lines 43-56), the sheet material having openings surrounded by the longitudinally oriented fibers and the transversely oriented fibers, wherein an average opening area of the sheet material overlaps the range recited in claim 1 (col. 4, lines 43-56). Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sheet material of Saiki as the sheet material of Marra, as the sheet material of Marra is used in filtration related applications (col. 7, lines 56-58), Marra disclosing that the stacked sheet material is an interchangeable material to netting (col. 2, lines 28-35, col. 4, lines 43-56, Fig. 1), the netting corresponding to the sheet material of Saiki (Fig. 1).
Since Marra teaches that the filaments range in size from 5 to 400 microns, and the pore openings therebetween can range from 1 to 6000 microns (col. 4, lines 53-55), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the sheet material of Marra has an opening ratio overlapping the ratio recited in claim 1; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 1. The angle of main filament and tie filaments of Marra is within the recited range (col. 2, lines 28-35, Fig. 1), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the angle between the orientation direction of the longitudinally oriented fibers and the orientation direction of the transversely oriented fibers is also within the recited range (col. 4, lines 43-56).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 1. Saiki discloses the sheet material made of an organic substance (0047), Marra discloses the sheet material made of an organic substance (col. 4, lines 43-49).
Regarding claim 6, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 1. Saiki discloses a material of the sheet material being polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene or polypropylene (0047).
As to claim 7, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 1. Saiki discloses the base mat includes an inorganic binder or an organic binder (0040).
Regarding claim 11, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 2. Saiki discloses the sheet material made of an organic substance (0047), Marra discloses the sheet material made of an organic substance (col. 4, lines 43-49).
Regarding claim 13, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 2. Saiki discloses a material of the sheet material being polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene or polypropylene (0047).
Regarding claim 14, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 3. Saiki discloses a material of the sheet material being polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene or polypropylene (0047).
Regarding claim 15, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 4. Saiki discloses a material of the sheet material being polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene or polypropylene (0047).
Regarding claim 16, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 5. Saiki discloses a material of the sheet material being polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene or polypropylene (0047).
As to claim 17, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 2. Saiki discloses the base mat includes an inorganic binder or an organic binder (0040).
With respect to claim 18, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 3. Saiki discloses the base mat includes an inorganic binder or an organic binder (0040).
Regarding claim 19, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 4. Saiki discloses the base mat includes an inorganic binder or an organic binder (0040).
As to claim 20, Saiki and Marra teach the material of claim 5. Saiki discloses the base mat includes an inorganic binder or an organic binder (0040).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki (US 2009/0087353 A1), in view of Marra (US 4302495).
With respect to claim 8, Saiki discloses an exhaust gas purification apparatus comprising an exhaust gas treatment body – element 20, a holding sealing material wrapped around an outer periphery of the exhaust gas treatment body – element 24, and a casing for housing the exhaust gas treatment body around which the holding sealing material is wrapped – element 12 (0042, Fig. 1).
Saiki and Marra teach the holding sealing material which is the mat material according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki (US 2009/0087353 A1), in view of Marra (US 4302495).
With respect to claim 9, Saiki discloses a method of producing a mat material (abstr.), comprising a base mat preparation step of preparing a base mat containing inorganic fibers and having a first main surface and a second main surface (0040, 0086-0095, Fig. 1), a sheet material preparation step of preparing a sheet material – there is the sheet material present and placed on the base mat (0012-0018, 0096), thus, it is implied that there is a sheet material preparation step of preparing the sheet material, a sheet material placement step of placing the sheet material on the first main surface and the second main surface of the base mat (0096).
Saiki is silent with respect to the sheet material being a stacked sheet material and having a configuration as recited in the claim. Marra discloses a mat material (col. 2, lines 28-35), comprising a sheet material being a stacked sheet material in which longitudinally oriented fibers and transversely oriented fibers are stacked (col. 4, lines 43-56), the sheet material having openings surrounded by the longitudinally oriented fibers and the transversely oriented fibers, wherein an average opening area of the sheet material overlaps the range recited in claim 9 (col. 4, lines 43-56). Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sheet material of Saiki as the sheet material of Marra, as the sheet material of Marra is used in filtration related applications (col. 7, lines 56-58), Marra disclosing that the stacked sheet material is an interchangeable material to netting (col. 2, lines 28-35, col. 4, lines 43-56, Fig. 1), the netting corresponding to the sheet material of Saiki (Fig. 1).
Since Marra teaches that the filaments range in size from 5 to 400 microns, and the pore openings therebetween can range from 1 to 6000 microns (col. 4, lines 53-55), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the sheet material of Marra has an opening ratio overlapping the ratio recited in claim 9; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Jan. 12, 2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 9 have been withdrawn.
The Applicant argued the references of Saiki and Marra do not render the independent claims 1 and 9 obvious, specifically they do not render obvious the sheet material having opening ratio range of more than 0 % and 40 % or less.
The Applicant argued Saiki aims to reduce the organic component of the mat member, specifically to 4.5 wt % or less. The Applicant relied on embodiments wherein the opening ratio is set to 93% or 96%, arguing that Saiki teaches away from using an opening ratio of the sheet member of more than 0% and 40% or less as recited in claims 1 and 9.
The Examiner notes that the sheet member of Saiki corresponding to the sheet material of the instant invention has an opening provided on at least part of the surface of the sheet member or it may have plural openings which may be regularly arranged (0011-0013). The sheet member may include an opening and a framework part surrounding the opening (0014, 0045). Saiki discloses that the opening ratio contributes to the reduction of the total weight of the sheet member, so the amount of organic components generated by thermal decomposition of the mat member can be significantly reduced (0044). Saiki discloses that “the number of openings formed on the sheet member is not necessarily limited to a specific number. Further, the opening ratio is not necessarily limited to a specific number either” (0046). Saiki discloses that the calculation regarding the range of 4.5 wt % or less of the total organic component in the sheet material (0049-0067) relied on by the Applicant is a tentative calculation provided as an example for explanation purposes (0067).
The Examiner also notes that Saiki discloses that the sheet material includes “framework part” which includes parts other than the openings (0045, 0046). The framework part serves to press down inorganic fibers, the framework part size adjusted according to the size of the inorganic fibers (0075-0079, Fig. 3). Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that Saiki allows for a broad range of the opening ratio.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights