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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Table 1 is illegible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b show inconsistent/incorrect hatching. See MPEP 608.02 (b)(IX) and (v):
(3) Sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “and wherein the heater element satisfies the following equations (1) and (2): (1) y ≤ -0.0004x2 + 0.5299x - 12.128 (2) y ≥ 0.00007x2 - 0.0133x + 44.223 in which y is a time [seconds] until a temperature reaches 80°C when a voltage of 10 to 13.5 V is applied to the heater element for vehicle air conditioning, and x is a heating characteristic factor represented by the following equation (3): (3) heating characteristic factor = a volume resistivity [Ω･cm] of the honeycomb structure / an opening ratio [%] of the honeycomb structure × a specific heat [J/kg･K] of the honeycomb structure × a density [g/m3] of the honeycomb structure”, Applicant is describing a desired property of the end product of the heater by means of the described equations. These equations do include certain measurable structural properties. However, the final equation is related to the time to heat the element to 80 degrees which would be known in the art to require many more variables to determine, e.g. current supplied, convection and other heat transfer properties around the element. None of which are positively described by Applicant. Since Applicant does provide a set of concrete structural limitations to the heater element itself such as opening ratio, volume resistivity and specific heat it is suggested that Applicant simply state the ranges for these properties as provided for in the following dependent claims. Alternatively applicant could state the specific physical ranges and state that the outcome time is an intended use or desired function not a structurally controlling limitation.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of wherein the specific heat of the honeycomb structure is 400 to 500 J/kg·K contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. BaTiO3 has a specific heat/density higher than the claimed maximum value. The specification states that the BaTiO3 may also include an amount of rare earth materials, however no specific chemical composition is mentioned and no particular examples are provided. As such there is no evidence that applicant had possession of the specific chemical formula (a modification of BaTiO3) that would meet the particular claimed ranges. The specification of the instant application therefore lacks description on how the specific heat of the honeycomb structure is controlled to be within the range of 400 to 500 J/kg·K because the applicant discloses the honeycomb structure 10 as containing peripheral walls 11 and partition walls 14, the applicant discloses the use of forms of BaTiO3 for these structures and BaTiO3 is known in the art to have a specific heat greater than 500 J/kg·K.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of wherein the density of the honeycomb structure is 5.6 to 5.8 g/m3 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. BaTiO3 has a density higher than the claimed maximum value. The specification states that the BaTiO3 may also include an amount of rare earth materials, however no specific chemical composition is mentioned and no particular examples are provided. As such there is no evidence that applicant had possession of the specific chemical formula (a modification of BaTiO3) that would meet the particular claimed ranges. The specification of the instant application therefore lacks description on how the density of the honeycomb structure is controlled to be within the range of 5.6 to 5.8 g/m3 because the applicant discloses the honeycomb structure 10 as containing peripheral walls 11 and partition walls 14, the applicant discloses the use of forms of BaTiO3 for these structures and BaTiO3 is known in the art to have a specific density higher than 5.8 g/m3.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014054935A Nishigaki.
Regarding claim 1,
Nishigaki teaches, except where struck through,
A heater element for vehicle air conditioning (heater 100 mounted on a vehicle for in vehicle heating, abstract, lines 5-6), comprising:
a honeycomb structure (tubulous honeycomb structure part 4, Fig. 2) comprising an outer peripheral wall (electrode portions 21, Fig. 2) and partition walls (partition walls 1 disposed inside electrode portions 21, Fig. 2) disposed on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall (fig. 2), the partition walls defining a plurality of cells (partition walls 2 that partitions and forms a plurality of cells 2 that extend from one end surface 11 to the other end surface 12), each of the cells extending from a first end face to a second end face (partition walls 2 that partitions and forms a plurality of cells 2 that extend from one end surface 11 to the other end surface 12, Fig. 1) to form a flow path (partition walls 2 serves as a flow path, Fig. 1);
and a pair of electrodes (electrode portions 21) provided on the first end face and the second end face (fig. 1 teaches electrode portions 21 extending between first surface 11 to second surface 12);
wherein the partition walls have a thickness of 0.14 mm or less (page 4 par. 5 teaches a thickness of 0.05 to 0.5mm which encompasses the range disclosed in the instant application), and wherein the heater element satisfies the following equations
.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Nishigaki does not expressly teach: (1) and (2): (1) y ≤ -0.0004x2 + 0.5299x - 12.128 (2) y ≥ 0.00007x2 - 0.0133x + 44.223 in which y is a time [seconds] until a temperature reaches 80°C when a voltage of 10 to 13.5 V is applied to the heater element for vehicle air conditioning,
and x is a heating characteristic factor represented by the following equation (3):
(3) heating characteristic factor = a volume resistivity [Ω･cm] of the honeycomb structure / an opening ratio [%] of the honeycomb structure × a specific heat [J/kg･K] of the honeycomb structure × a density [g/m3] of the honeycomb structure.
Nishigaki teaches a structure with a resistivity, honeycomb shape, opening ratio, and wall thickness which make the structure of Nishigaki capable of reaching a desired 70C or greater in a specific time frame as evidenced by tables 1 and page 3 par. 6. The design for Nishigaki is intended to be substantial enough to provide effective heating of a fluid to a desired 70C or greater in a specific time frame per page 13 par. 2-4 and is therefore capable of meeting the heating time equations disclosed in the instant application.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Nishigaki it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the equation disclosed to achieve the predictable result to provide effective heating of a fluid per page 13 par. 2-4. It has been held that that determining the optimum equation based on experimentation is a result effective variable and is within the level of routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2,
Nishigaki teaches,
wherein the opening ratio of the honeycomb structure is 71.7 to 80.3% (page 5 par. 2 teaches an aperture ratio 60 to 90% which is within the range disclosed in the instant application).
Regarding claim 3,
Nishigaki teaches,
wherein the volume resistivity of the honeycomb structure is 10 to 20 Ω·cm (abstract and page 3 par. 5 teach a resistivity of between 4-25Ωcm which is within the range disclosed in the instant application).
Regarding claim 7,
Nishigaki teaches,
further comprising a functional material-containing layer (insulating layer page 5 has the function of insulating par. 7) provided on surfaces of the partition walls parallel to an extending direction of the cells (insulating layer page 5 par. 7 teaches the insulating layer being on the surface of partition wall 1).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014054935A Nishigaki in view of US20200016956A1 KWON.
Regarding claim 4,
Nishigaki teaches a honeycomb structure (as discussed above) of a heating element made of SiC (pages 4 and 15 to 16), however, the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Nishigaki does not teach: wherein the specific heat of the honeycomb structure is 400 to 500 J/kg·K.
KWON teaches the use of a material where the specific heat of the… structure is 400 to 500 J/kg·K (par. 68 teaches the use of Barium titanate for the plate shaped ceramic heating element 110 which is the same material disclosed in the specification of the instant application and therefore is anticipated to possess the same specific heat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the SiC honeycomb material of Nishigaki with the Barium titanate material of KWON to create a heating element with a low or high resistance value dependent upon design criterion (KWON par. 69 and 70).
Regarding claim 5,
Nishigaki teaches a honeycomb structure (as discussed above) of a heating element made of SiC (pages 4 and 15 to 16), however, the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Nishigaki does not teach: wherein the density of the honeycomb structure is 5.6 to 5.8 g/m3.
KWON teaches the use of a material where the density of the… structure is 5.6 to 5.8 g/m3 (par. 68 teaches the use of Barium titanate for the plate shaped ceramic heating element 110 which is the same material disclosed in the specification of the instant application and therefore is anticipated to possess the same density).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the SiC honeycomb material of Nishigaki with the Barium titanate material of KWON to create a heating element with a low or high resistance value dependent upon design criterion (KWON par. 69 and 70).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014054935A Nishigaki in view of US4032752A Ohmura.
Regarding claim 6,
While Nishigaki teaches that per prior art documents 1 and 2 it is well known in the art to utilize a PTC heating element. The difference between Nishigaki and the claimed invention is that Nishigaki disparages but does not preclude the use of a PTC heating element and therefore does not expressly teach: wherein the partition walls are made of a material having a PTC property.
Ohmura teaches a ptc ceramic article 1 with a honeycomb structure with ohmic electrodes 4 and 4’ as partition walls and further teaches the partition walls are made of a material having a PTC property (column 1 lines 1-16 and column 2 lines 8-13 teach the use of a material with a PTC property) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the honeycomb material of Nishigaki to include a PTC material as taught by Ohmura for the purpose to create a heating element of PTC ceramic article for a honey-comb structure composed of barium titanate in which the resistance of the ohmic electrode does not increase during use to increase the heating elements life expectancy (column 2 lines 8 to 13).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014054935A Nishigaki in view of US20090169438A1 Bruggink.
Regarding claim 8,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Nishigaki does not teach: 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.
Bruggink teaches a gas filtration section II comprising gas absorbing units 15 in a honeycomb structure (par. 25) and further teaches a functional material-containing layer (non-oxide absorbent layer of the zeolite slurry) comprises a functional material having a function of adsorbing one or more selected from water vapor, carbon dioxide, and volatile components (par. 2, claim 7, par. 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating layer of Nishigaki with the absorbent layer material of Bruggink for the purpose to provide air cleaning to optimized air cleaning efficiency (Bruggink par. 29).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014054935A Nishigaki in view of US 20160107114 A1 Fu.
Regarding claim 9,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Nishigaki does not teach: wherein the functional material-containing layer comprises a catalyst.
Fu teaches a honeycomb shaped air purification system (par. 4, 24, 65) that is coated with a functional material (220) wherein the functional material-containing layer comprises a catalyst (claim 7, par. 85 teach Pt/TiO2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating layer of Nishigaki with the catalyst material of Fu for the purpose of to have a chemical reaction with a chemical gas pollutant with the gas or vapor (Fu par. 68).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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 at (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, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights