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.
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 1–9 and 11–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Miyairi et al., US 2021/0041141 A1 (“Miyairi”) in view of Takase, US 2020/0291840 A1 (“Takase”).
Miyairi discloses that a heater element (Miyairi’s heater element 100, Miyairi Fig. 1, [0063]), comprising:
a honeycomb structure (as shown in Miyairi Fig. 1, [0063]) comprising an outer peripheral wall (Miyairi’s side wall 112, Id.) and partition walls (Miyairi’s partition wall 113, Id.) disposed on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall (112 of Miyairi, Id.),
the partition walls (113 of Miyairi, Fig. 1, [0063]) defining a plurality of cells (Miyairi’s cells 115, Id.),
each cell of the plurality of cells (115 of Miyairi, Fig. 1, [0063]) extending from a first end face (Miyairi’s first end face 114, Id.) to a second end face (Miyairi’s second end face 116, Id.) to form a flow path (Id.),
at least the partition walls being made of a material having a PTC property (Miyairi [0018]);
a pair of electrodes (Miyairi’s electrode 118, Miyairi Fig. 1, [0093]) provided on the first end face (114 of Miyairi) and the second end face (116 of Miyairi);
wherein (ρ1 / t1) / (ρ2 / t2) is 0.003 or less (Miyairi discloses its electrodes be made of Cu, Cu is known to have a volume resistivity of 0.017 ohm mm2/m1, which gives a value of ρ1 of 0.00017 ohm·cm; Miyairi discloses a room temperature volume resistivity of its partition wall ρ2 to be 10 ohm·cm, Miyairi discloses in the same table a partition wall thickness t2 of 0.0762 mm, Miyairi, Table 1-2, [0120]; Miyairi discloses its electrode 118 preferably have a thickness t1 of 5 to 30 microns2, Miyairi [0110]; based on the provided numbers, one can calculate (ρ1 / t1) / (ρ2 / t2) to be (0.00017/0.01)/(10/0.0762), which gives 0.00013,which falls within the claimed range of 0.003 or less).
Miyairi does not disclose the limitation of wherein terminals provided on at least a part of the pair of electrodes and wherein the terminals have a thickness of 0.01 to 5 mm. Miyairi does not disclose (ρ1 / t1) / (ρ3 / t3) is 0.02 or more, wherein ρ1 is a volume resistivity [Ω·cm] of the pair of electrodes, t1 is a thickness [mm] of the pair of electrodes, ρ2 is a volume resistivity [Ω·cm] of the partition walls, t2 is a thickness of the partition wall [mm], ρ3 is a volume resistivity [Ω･cm] of the terminals, and t3 is a thickness [mm] of the terminal.
In the analogous art of honeycomb structure comprising electrodes, Takase discloses a pair of metal terminals 21a, 21b attached to a pair or electrode layers 14a, 14b, Takase Fig. 2, [0065] and [0067]. Similar to Miyairi, Takase discloses its electrode layer and its terminals may be composed of metal and they could be made of the same material, Takase [0065] and [0070]. Additionally, Takase discloses its metal terminal could have a thickness of 0.4 mm, Takase [0127]. Takase discloses its configuration can lead to improvement of joining reliability between metal terminals and the honeycomb structure, Takase [0069]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Takase’s configuration in Miyairi for the benefits disclosed. Additionally, a person or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a dedicated terminal to connect Miyairi’s wires 119 because terminal provides a more dedicated and better connection interface.
With such modification, modified Miyairi would have a terminal similar to that disclosed by Takase with a thickness of 0.4 mm. Such range falls within the claimed range of 0.01 to 5 mm. Additionally, modified Miyairi’s terminal would be made of the same material as Miyairi’s electrode 118, which renders ρ1= ρ3, and the expression of (ρ1 / t1) / (ρ3 / t3) could be simplified to t3/t1; t1 is discussed above as 10 microns or 0.01 mm, and t3 is 0.4 mm, which gives t3/t1 of 40, falls within the claimed range of (ρ1 / t1) / (ρ3 / t3) being 0.02 or more.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Miyairi does not disclose that the heater element according to claim 1, wherein S1 / S2 is 0.010 or more, wherein S1 is an area [mm2] of surfaces where the terminals are in contact with the pair of electrodes, and S2 is an area [mm2] of the first end face or the second end face of the honeycomb structure.
However, Takase discloses its welded portions 17a, 17b are welded and a decrease in a welded area of each of the welded portions can suppress cracking and peeling due to a difference in thermal expansion, Takase [0071]. Takase discloses a total welded area is preferably 120 mm2 or less, Takase [0072]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Moyairi’s terminal contact area S1 to be the same as that disclosed by Takase for the benefits of suppress cracking and peeling. Modified Miyairi would therefore have an S1 of less than 120 mm2. Additionally, Miyairi discloses its honeycomb structure could be a cylindrical with a diameter of 0.08 m, Miyairi [0120]. Based on Miyairi’s teaching, one can calculate S1= π(D/2)2=3.14*(0.08/2)2=0.005024 m2 = 5024 mm2. S1/S2 of modified Miyairi therefore gives a range of less than 0.2, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.010 or more and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Miyairi discloses that the heater element according to claim 2, wherein the S1 / S2 is 0.010 to 0.430 because modified Miyairi discloses a range of S1/S2 of less than 0.2 as discussed in claim 2, such range overlaps with the claimed range and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, “[t]he law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims…In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative the prior art range.” MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). Here, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the claimed range is critical. Therefore, any difference between the prior art and the claimed invention with respect to this range is insufficient for patentability.
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Miyairi discloses that the heater element according to claim 1, further comprising an intermediate material (Takase’s welding base layer 16a, 16b, Takase Fig. 4, [0092]) between the pair of electrodes (14a, 16b of Takase, Id.) and the terminals (21a, 21b of Takase, Id.), wherein S4 / S3 is 0.50 to 2.00 (Takase discloses S4 equal to S3 in Fig. 4, which gives S4/S3 of 1, falling within the claimed range, Takase Fig. 4), wherein S3 is an area [mm2] of surfaces where the terminals are in contact with the intermediate material, and S4 is an area [mm2] of a surface where the intermediate material is in contact with the pair of electrodes.
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Miyairi discloses that the heater element according to claim 1, wherein the material having the PTC property is made of a material comprising 50% by mass or more barium titanate (Miyairi discloses 70% by mass of barium titanate, Miyairi [0072]), the material having a lead content of 0.01% by mass or less (Miyairi discloses it is preferred for its honeycomb to be free of lead because its honeycomb structure directly contacts air, Miyairi, [0069]).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Miyairi discloses that the heater element according to claim 1, wherein the material having the PTC property has a volume resistivity of 0.5 to 30 Ω·cm at 25°C (Miyairi discloses its honeycomb is made of Barium Titanate, which has a volume resistivity of 10 Ω·cm at room temperature, Miyairi [0121] and Table 1-2).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Miyairi discloses that the heater element according to claim 1, wherein the honeycomb structure has a thickness of the partition walls of 0.300 mm or less (Miyairi discloses its average thickness of partition wall is 0.13 mm of less, falling within the claimed range, Miyairi [0019]),
a cell density of 100 cells/cm2 or less (Miyairi discloses its cell density is 120 cells/cm2 or less, Miyairi [0084], such range overlaps with the claimed range and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).),
and a cell pitch of 1.0 mm or more (Miyairi discloses a cell pitch of 1.27, falls within the claimed range; Miyrari [0121] and Table 1-2).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Miyairi discloses that the heater element according to claim 1, wherein the honeycomb structure has a thickness of the partition walls of 0.08 to 0.36 mm (Miyairi discloses its average thickness of partition wall is 0.13 mm of less, falling within the claimed range, Miyairi [0019]),
a cell density of 2.54 to 140 cells/cm2 (Miyairi discloses its cell density is 120 cells/cm2 or less, Miyairi [0084], such range falls within the claimed range and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).),
and an opening ratio of the plurality of cells of 0.70 or more (Miyairi discloses its open frontal area is preferably 0.81 or more, Miyairi [0082]; Miyairi also disclsoes open frontal area refers to the ratio of the area of the cell opening on each face to the area of the end face including cell opening portion, Miyairi [0082]; such definition is consistent with what is provided in the published Spec. [0076]); Miyairi therefore disclsoes an opening ratio of cells of 0.81 or more, falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Miyairi does not disclose that the heater element according to claim 1, comprising a functional material-containing layer on surfaces of the partition walls.
However, Takase discloses its honeycomb structure is used as a catalyst support, Takase [0055]. Takase discloses a catalyst is configured to purify harmful substances, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Takase’s catalyst layer on modified Mayairi’s partition wall to improve a purification performance. With such modification, the catalyst layer formed would read on the claimed “functional material-containing layer.”
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Miyairi discloses that the heater element according to claim 9, wherein the functional material-containing layer comprises a catalyst (Takase [0055]).
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Miyairi discloses that a vehicle interior purification system (as shown in Miyairi Fig. 8), comprising:
at least one heater element (Miyairi’s heater element 100, Miyairi Fig. 8, [0111]) according to claim 1 (see mapping in claim 1);
a power supply (Miyairi’s battery 134, Miyairi Fig. 8, [0111]) for applying a voltage to the heater element (100 of Miyairi, Id.);
an inflow pipe (Miyairi’s inflow pipe 132a, Miyairi Fig. 8, [0111]) communicating a vehicle interior (130 of Miyairi, Id.) with the first end face (114 of Miyairi) of the heater element (100 of Miyairi, Id.);
an outflow pipe (Miyairi’s outflow pipe 136, Miyairi Fig. 8, [0111]) having a first path (interior of pipe 136) communicating the second end face (116 of Miyairi) of the heater element (100 of Miyairi) with the vehicle interior (130 of Miyairi, Id.);
and a ventilator (Miyairi’s blower 138, Miyairi Fig. 8, [0113]) for causing an air from the vehicle interior to flow into the first end face of the heater element through the inflow pipe (Miyairi’s blower 138 performs such function, Id.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Miyairi in view of Takase as applied to claim 9, and in further view of Miyairi ’722 et al., US 2023/0129722 A1 (“Miyairi ’722”).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Miyairi does not disclose that the heater element according to claim 9, wherein the functional material-containing layer comprises a functional material having a function of adsorbing one or more selected from water vapor, carbon dioxide, and volatile components.
In the analogous art of heated honeycomb structures, Miyairi ’722 discloses a functional material layer 20 of catalyst disposed on the surface of partition walls, Miyairi ’722 Fig. 1, [0069]. Miyairi ’722 discloses its functional material layer 20 could be adsorbent preferably has a function of adsorbing one or more kinds selected from components to be removed in the air, for example, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and an odor component, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Miyairi’s functional material containing layer to be an adsorbent as disclosed by Miyairi ’722 for the purpose of adsorbing harmful components in the air such as odor components.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Miyairi in view of Takase as applied to claim 12, and in further view of Matsumoto et al., US 2020/0223293 A1 (“Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Miyairi does not disclose that the vehicle interior purification system according to claim 12,
wherein the outflow pipe (136 of Miyairi) has, in addition to the first path (interior of pipe 136 of Miyairi),
a second path communicating the second end face of the heater element with the outside of a vehicle,
wherein the outflow pipe has a s witching valve capable of switching the flow of the air flowing through the outflow pipe between the first path and the second path, and wherein the vehicle interior purification system comprises a control unit capable of executing switching between: a first mode wherein the voltage applied from the power supply is turned off, the switching valve is switched such that the air flowing through the outflow pipe passes through the first path, and the ventilator is turned on; and a second mode wherein the voltage applied from the power supply is turned on, the switching valve is switched such that the air flowing through the outflow pipe passes through the second path, and the ventilator is turned on.
In the analogous art of heated filter structure for automobiles, Matsumoto discloses an air purification device 1, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0052]. Matsumoto discloses:
wherein the outflow pipe (Matsumoto’s downstream-side block 13, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0067]) has, in addition to the first path (Matsumoto’s return pipeline 13c, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0067]),
a second path (Matsumoto’s vehicle-outside discharge pipeline 13d, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0067]) communicating the second end face of the heater element (left side of Matsumoto’s heating apparatus18, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0080]) with the outside of a vehicle (Matsumoto discloses its pipeline 13d is a vehicle-outside discharge pipeline, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0067]),
wherein the outflow pipe (13 of Matsumoto) has a s witching valve (Matsumoto’s open/closing door 19, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0071]) capable of switching the flow of the air flowing through the outflow pipe (13 of Matsumoto) between the first path (13a of Matsumoto) and the second path (13b of Matsumoto), and wherein the vehicle interior purification system (1 of Matsumoto) comprises a control unit (Matsumoto’s actuator 21, Matsumoto Fig. 8, [0071]) capable of executing switching between:
a first mode wherein the voltage applied from the power supply is turned off, the switching valve is switched such that the air flowing through the outflow pipe passes through the first path (Matsumoto’s actuator 21 is capable of switching to the first mode, wherein the power supply is turned off and the air flow through the first path when the actuator switch the value to open 13c while the power supply to heater is off, for example it is warm enough to use the heater, one would tend to turn heat off to save energy, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0071], also pointed out here that the instant Spec. does not disclose its control as a computer, and therefore, the limitation of “capable of” is treated as intended use, rather than a computer program), and the ventilator is turned on (Matsumoto’s fan 16 would read on the claimed ventilator, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0080]), and it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that the ventilator need to be turned on for the air flow to flow efficiently to downstream side of a heater and adsorbent unit);
and a second mode wherein the voltage applied from the power supply is turned on, the switching valve is switched such that the air flowing through the outflow pipe passes through the second path, and the ventilator is turned on (Matsumoto’s actuator is 21 is capable of switching to the open passage 13d, allowing the air to be discharged to vehicle outside while the heating unit 18 is turned on and the fan 16 is turned on, (Matsumoto’s actuator is 21 is capable of switching to the open passage 13d, allowing the air to be discharged to vehicle outside while the heating unit 18 is turned and Fig. 3, [0080] and [0082]).
Matsumoto discloses its design can improve regeneration efficiency of the adsorption unit while minimizing consumption of in-vehicle energy such as electric energy or the like, Matsumoto Fig. 3, [0085]. Additionally, Miyairi discloses its piping maybe further branched to provide a path for exhausting the air to the outside through a valve or in conjunction with another exhaust system, Miyairi [0119]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Miyairi’s outflow pipe to have a valve and a second flow path as disclosed by Matsumoto because Matsumoto’s design provides a known configuration to discharge filtered/heated air to outside of the vehicle and its design improve regeneration efficiency of the adsorption unit while minimizing consumption of in-vehicle energy. The proposed modification would add a valve to Miyairi’s outflow pipe 136 the same way as disclosed by Matsumoto and it would have been obvious for the modified system to be connected to the same control system to allow a driver or engineer to have full control of the vehicle heating and ventilation system.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner drops the current objection because the applicant’s amendment overcome the current objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner drops the current rejection because the applicant’s amendment overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant include a further limitation of terminal thickness, applicant argues that neither Maiyari or Takahashi discloses the claimed amendment, Applicant Rem. dated May. 05, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) ps. 6–7. Applicant’s argument regarding dependent claims relies on the allowability of claim 1, Applicant Rem. ps. 7–8.
In view of the amendment, the examiner relies on Takesa to teach the amendment, Applicant’s arguments are therefore moot.
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 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 Volume resistivity is an intrinsic material property, it depends heavily on the materials composition and temperature. R.A. Matula discloses a volume resisitivity for Copper at 20 °C to be 0.0147 ohm.mm2/m. Matula is cited as an evidence reference, R.A. Matula, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1979, p. 1298.
2 t1 is picked to be 10 microns for the calculation below.
Prosecution Insights