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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawaguchi (US PGPub No. 2019/0277570).
Regarding claim 1, Kawaguchi discloses a honeycomb structure (hollow pillar shaped honeycomb structure 8, Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
an inner peripheral wall (6); an outer peripheral wall (7); and partition walls (5a) disposed between the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall, the partition walls defining a plurality of cells (4) each extending from a first end face (2) to a second end face (3),
wherein, in a cross section orthogonal to an extending direction of the cells (Fig. 2), the partition walls comprise one or more first partition walls extending in a radial direction (plurality of the radial extending first partition walls 5a), and
wherein the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall have an average thickness of 0.1 mm or more (see table 1, the outer wall 6 and inner wall 7 each has a thickness of 1.5 mm), and a thickness variation coefficient of 1.0 or less, represented by the following equation (1): the thickness variation coefficient = a standard deviation of the thicknesses of the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall / an average thickness of the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall (1) (the outer wall 6 and inner wall 7 have the same thickness. Therefore, a standard deviation of the thicknesses of the outer wall 6 and inner wall 7 is zero. As a result, the equation 1 is also zero which is less than 1 as claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Kawaguchi further discloses wherein the partition walls further comprise one or more second partition walls (5b) extending in a circumferential direction in a cross section orthogonal to the extending direction of the cells (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kawaguchi further discloses wherein the inner peripheral wall has an inner diameter of 20 to 200 mm (diameter of the hollow region 10 of 52mm, see Example 1, paragraph 0168. The hollow region 10 defines an inner diameter of the inner wall 7), and the outer peripheral wall has an outer diameter of 30 to 300 mm (outer diameter of 70mm in Example 1, paragraph 0168).
Regarding claim 5, Kawaguchi further discloses wherein the number of the second partition walls is 50 or less (two second partition walls 5b shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kawaguchi further discloses wherein the first partition walls and the second partition walls have an average thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm (see table 1, both the first and second partition walls have a thickness of 0.3 mm).
Regarding claims 8, Kawaguchi further discloses wherein a length in the extending direction of the cells is 10 to 300 mm (a length of the honeycomb structure in Figs. 1 and 2 is 25mm, Example 1, paragraph 0168).
Regarding claims 9, Kawaguchi further discloses a heat exchanger (1) comprising the honeycomb structure (in Figs. 1 and 2) according to claim 1.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi (US PGPub No. 2019/0277570) in view of Miyairi (US PGPub No. 2020/0123956).
Regarding claim 4, Kawaguchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the number of the first partition walls is 50 to 1500.
Miyairi discloses disclose wherein the number of the first partition walls is 50 to 1500 (paragraph 0072 and Fig. 3, the ceramic cylinder tube 10 may be provided with 50 or more cell columns. Therefore, 50 or more radial first partition walls 13 are provided in the ceramic cylinder tube 10).
The number of the first partition walls 5a determines the number of cells 4 and further determines the cell density according to paragraph 0081 in Kawaguchi. The paragraph 0081 further discloses that the cell density may be adjusted as needed depending on applications or the like and increasing the cell density increases the strength of the hollow pillar shaped honeycomb structure 8 itself.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the number of the first partition walls is 50 to 1500 in Kawaguchi as taught by Miyairi in order to increase strength and increase heat transfer area if the hollow pillar shaped honeycomb structure 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Kawaguchi fails to disclose the standard deviation of the respective average thickness, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies upon: the thickness variation of the inner and outer peripheral walls in the honeycomb structure as a result of extruding a green body and further determines the standard deviation (pages 6 and 7 of remarks), are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The argument implies the standard deviation in microscopic view of the green body or surface roughness, and that causes the thickness variation described in remarks.
The argued part of claim 1 is excerpted as follows:
“wherein the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall have an average thickness of 0.1 mm or more, and a thickness variation coefficient of 1.0 or less, represented by the following equation (1): the thickness variation coefficient = a standard deviation of the thicknesses of the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall / an average thickness of the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall (1)”.
Claim 1 only recites a general average thickness and a standard deviation of the thicknesses of the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall, without specifying where the thickness is taken or details of the thickness of the inner and outer peripheral walls.
Kawaguchi discloses that the outer wall 6 and inner wall 7 have the same thickness of 1.5 mm (in Example 1 of Table 1) more than claimed 0.1 mm. Therefore, an average thickness of the outer wall 6 and inner wall 7 is the same 1.5 mm. A standard deviation of thicknesses of the walls 6 and 7 must be zero because they have the same value, and thus the claimed equation and “a thickness variation coefficient of 1.0 or less”.
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 FOR K LING whose telephone number is (571)272-8752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/F.K.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3763