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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2023 and 05/20/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the claim dated 11/14/2023, claims 1-8 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the pillar shaped honeycomb segments have an opening ratio of 71.7 to 80.3%” in line 2. The term “an opening ratio of 71.7 to 80.3%” is indefinite because the claim does not specify the reference area or structure relative to which the opening ratio is measured. Without identifying the corresponding opening area and total reference area, one of the ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed opening ratio.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi WO2020036067A1 (admitted prior art by Applicant (see para.0005 of the current application), US20210041141A1 is used for mapping
Regarding claim 1, Miyairi discloses
A heater element (400, see fig.5) for vehicle air conditioning (See title), comprising: a honeycomb structure (100, see fig.1 and para.0063) comprising: a plurality of pillar shaped honeycomb segments (combo 112-113, see fig.1-2 and para.0063) each having an outer peripheral wall (112, see fig.1) and partition walls (113, see fig.1) disposed on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall (112, see fig.1), the partition walls (113, see fig.1) defining a plurality of cells (115, see fig.1 and para.0063), each of the cells (115) extending from a first end face (114, see fig.1) to a second end face (116, see fig.1) to form a flow path (see para.0063: “ form flow paths from a first end face 114 to a second end face 116”); and
joining layers (117, see fig.5) for joining surfaces of the outer peripheral walls (112, see fig.1) of the plurality of pillar shaped honeycomb segments (combo 112-113) parallel to an extending direction of the cells (115, see fig.1) ; and
a pair of electrodes (118, see fig.1) provided on surfaces of the outer peripheral wall (112, see fig.1), the partition walls (113, see fig.1) and the joining layers (117, see figs.1 and 5) on the first end face (114) and the second end face (116, see fig.1).
Miyairi does not expressly disclose the partition walls have a thickness of 0.1016 to 0.1397 mm, and the joining layers have a thickness of 1.0 to 5.0 mm.
However, Miyairi discloses the partition walls (113) have a thickness of 0.1016 to 0.1397 mm (see para.0076: “the upper limit of the average thickness of the partition walls 113 in the honeycomb structure portion is preferably 0.13 mm or less” which overlaps with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of Miyairi to have “a thickness of 0.1016 to 0.1397 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05), for the purpose of “ensuring the strength of the honeycomb structure portion” (see para.0076 of Miyairi).
Furthermore, the modification of Miyairi is silent on the joining layers have a thickness of 1.0 to 5.0 mm.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.5), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Miyairi teaches a certain thickness of the joining layers (See items 117, fig.5) and having a specific thickness of the joining layers is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the thickness of the joining layers to be “1.0 to 5.0 mm” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the thickness of the joining layers, to be “1.0 to 5.0 mm”, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Doing so achieves both durability and heating performance as desired.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Miyairi is silent on the pillar shaped honeycomb segments have an opening ratio of 71.7 to 80.3%.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.5), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Miyairi teaches a certain opening ratio of the pillar shaped honeycomb segments and having a specific opening ratio of “71.7 to 80.3%” is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the opening ratio of the pillar shaped honeycomb segments is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the opening ratio of the pillar shaped honeycomb segments within the range “71.7 to 80.3%” is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Doing so achieves both durability and heating performance as desired.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Miyairi is silent on a ratio of areas of the joining layers to an area of the first end face or the second end face of the honeycomb structure is more than or equal to 1.9% and less than 28.6%.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.5), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Miyairi teaches a certain ratio of areas of the joining layers 117 to an area of the first end face 114 or the second end face 116 of the honeycomb structure and having a specific ratio of areas of the joining layers to an area of the first end face or the second end face of the honeycomb structure “more than or equal to 1.9% and less than 28.6%” is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the ratio of areas of the joining layers to an area of the first end face or the second end face of the honeycomb structure is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the ratio of areas of the joining layers to an area of the first end face or the second end face of the honeycomb structure “more than or equal to 1.9% and less than 28.6%” is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Doing so achieves both durability and heating performance as desired.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Miyairi further discloses
the partition walls are made of a material containing barium titanate as a main component (see para.0026: “ the outer peripheral side wall and the partition walls are made of a material comprising barium titanate as a main component”).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Miyairi further discloses the pair of electrodes are made of a material having a lower electrical resistance than that of the barium titanate (see para.0093: “As the electrode 118, for example, an electrode containing at least one selected from Cu, Ag, Al and Si can be used”).
Notes: In the current application, pub. Para.0081 discloses: “The pair of electrodes 20 a, 20 b may employ, for example, a metal or alloy containing at least one selected from Cu, Ag, Al, Ni and Si.” Thus, by having the same material as disclosed by the current application, the material of the electrodes of Miyairi has “a lower electrical resistance than that of the barium titanate” as claimed.
Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi in view of Kinoshita JP 2014196523 A
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Miyairi discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a functional material-containing layer provided on surfaces of the partition walls parallel to an extending direction of the cells.
Kinoshita discloses a manufacturing method of metal-containing film, comprising:
a functional material-containing layer (16, see fig.1) provided on surfaces (15, see fig.1) of the partition walls (14, see fig.1) parallel to an extending direction of the cells (12, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyairi invention to incorporate the “functional material-containing layer provided on surfaces of the partition walls parallel to an extending direction of the cells” as taught by Kinoshita. Doing so improves the cost performance of the heater element.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Miyairi in view of Kinoshita further discloses the functional material-containing layer 16 of Kinoshita, see rejection of claim 6, the layer 16 is included in the modification) comprises a functional material having a function of adsorbing one or more selected from water vapor, carbon dioxide, and volatile components (See page 1, lines 41-43 of Kinoshita: “, a metal-containing membrane that functions as a separation membrane is used to manufacture a structure used as a membrane element that performs concentration, separation, and the like of the mixed fluid” and see page 4, lines 48-50: “The functional layer 16 formed in the forming step may contain metal ions and a liquid.”).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Miyairi in view of Kinoshita further discloses
The heater element for vehicle air conditioning according to claim 6, wherein the functional material-containing layer (16 of Kinoshita, see rejection of claim 6, the layer 16 is included in the modification) comprises a catalyst (See page 3, lines 50-52 of Kinoshita: “The functional layer 16 contains metal ions. The type of the metal ion is not particularly limited, but preferably contains, as the metal species, gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium, nickel, cobalt, iron, alkali metals and the like, and more preferably silver. Silver ions are particularly suitable for the separation of unsaturated hydrocarbons.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20230129722A1 discloses heater element including a honeycomb structure and a functional material-containing layer, wherein the honeycomb structure has an outer peripheral wall and partition walls provided inside the outer peripheral wall, the partition walls partitioning a plurality of cells that form flow paths extending from an inlet end surface to an outlet end surface, and at least the partition walls are made of a material having PTC characteristics, and wherein the functional material-containing layer is provided on a surface of the partition walls, and a thickness of the functional material-containing layer increases from the inlet end surface toward the outlet end surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights