DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6510283 (‘083).
Regarding claim 1, ‘083 teaches a metal pipe (12) having a straight portion (see Fig. 2a) and a honeycomb structure (11) with an outer peripheral wall and a plurality of partition walls (4) disposed inner to the outer peripheral wall which defined a plurality of cells (3) extending from first to second end faces (2), the honey comb structure being disposed in the straight portion of the metal pipe (Fig. 14); wherein the straight portion of the metal pipe is fixed by interference fitting to the outer peripheral wall parallel to an extending direction of the cells of the structure (e.g. Fig. 14).
‘083 does not specify the exact relationship to between the elements and the yield point strain of the materials. However, ‘083 does teach that the amount of deformation in the interference fit is results effective.
It would have been obvious to optimize the deformation of the interference fit of ‘083 as such variables are well-known to be results effective, including within the ranges of the recited formula.
It is additionally noted that the recited formula is not given any criticality in the disclosure. The formula states that the amount deformation of the pipe is higher than 1% of the yield strain of the pipe material multiplied by the undeformed diameter of the pipe. The specification indicates that following this formula will result in plastic deformation and that this is a beneficial result (Para. [0068]). However, the range of the formula (as low as 1% of the strain at plastic deformation) does not bear this out. The formula requires that the stated goals of plastic deformation not be met. Therefore, as the stated goals of the formula do not comply with the formula results, no criticality could be found for the use of the formula.
Regarding claim 2, it is firstly noted that any installation having a honeycomb Length to honeycomb Diameter ratio of 1 will yield a zero for the formula at an angle theta of zero degrees. As it is the goal of ‘083 to approach as close to a theta of zero degrees as possible and the above ratio is always 1 or lower, ‘083 teaches toward the design goal. Furthermore, the precise examples given in Table 1 yield formula results of, for example, 21.65 (which is larger than zero) for Example 1.
Regarding claim 2, it is further noted that, as the new amendments do not define where the reference plane is located and only its orientation relative to the axial direction, any such device will meet the criteria by selecting an appropriately placed reference plane.
‘083 further teaches that: the honeycomb structure is made of Si-SiC material (“the columnar ceramic body 11 made of a Si-SiC-based (Si-impregnated SiC, (Si + Al) -impregnated SiC) material”), per claim 4; the metal pipe is a stainless steel pipe (“SUS 430”), per claim 5.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘083 in view of Kawaguchi (US 10,494,974).
Regarding claim 3, ‘083 does not teach the inner peripheral wall.
Kawaguchi teaches that it is old and well-known to form honeycomb structures with such inner peripheral walls (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of ‘083 with the honeycomb structures of Kawaguchi to allow for bypass.
Regarding claim 6, ‘083 teaches an outer member disposed at an interval on an outer side in a radial direction of the metal pipe so that a fluid can flow around an outer periphery of the metal pipe (see Fig. 14) but does not teach that the outer member is cylindrical.
Kawaguchi teaches a cylindrical shape to such an outer member (see 25).
It would have been obvious to conform the outer member of ‘083 to the cylindrical shape, as taught by Kawaguchi, in order to reduce flow eddies and dead zones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the teachings of ‘283, the strain of the interference fit is determined to be a results effective variable in the segment that describes selection of interference strain relative to thermal expansion for purposes of maintaining the fit at operating temperatures.
The applicant does not address the fact that the stated goal of the equation in claim 1 is to ensure plastic deformation (see Para. [0068]) but the equation itself requires that the material never reach higher than 1% of the amount of strain required for plastic deformation. As such, no criticality could be found for the equation in the disclosure.
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 Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763