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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mase (US 2014/0291315).
With respect to claims 1-4, Mase discloses a honeycomb structure (see Mase, Fig. 7) comprising: (a) a honeycomb structure portion (400) made of ceramics (see Mase, paragraph [0057]), such portion (400) comprising an outer periphery wall, a partition wall disposed on an inner side of the outer periphery wall, the partition wall defining a plurality of cells extending from a first end face to a second end face to form a flow path, and a plurality of slits (6a, 6b, 8a, 8b) cut inwardly in a radial direction from the outer peripheral wall, each of the slits extending in a extending (longitudinal) direction of the cells (see Mase, Fig. 1); (b) a pair of electrode layers (P) used for passing a current into and out of the honeycomb structure, the pair of electrode layers (P) being provided on an outer surface of the outer peripheral wall so as to face each other across a central axis of the honeycomb structure portion (see Mase, Fig. 7); and (c) reinforcing layers (Q) provided on the outer surface of the outer peripheral wall so as to be located between the pair of electrode layers (P) in a circumferential direction of the honeycomb structure portion (400), the reinforcing layers (Q) being electrically separated from the pair of electrode layers (P) by the slits (6a, 6b, 8a, 8b) . The entire outer periphery of the outer peripheral wall is covered with the electrode layers (P) and the reinforcing layers (Q) except for positions occupied by the plurality of slits (6a, 6b, 8a, 8b). The electrode layers (P) and the reinforcing layers (Q) are made of the same material which is the same material of the honeycomb structure portion per se (see Mase, paragraph [0044]). Such being the case, a volume resistivity of the reinforcing layers (Q) and a volume resistivity of the honeycomb structure (400) would be the same and a ratio of one to the other would be equal to 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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase (US 2014/0291315) in view of Ohashi (US 2022/0095421).
With respect to claim 5, see discussion supra at paragraph 4. Mase discloses wherein the number of slits is variable (see Mase, paragraph [0053]). In a related honeycomb structure to that of Mase, Ohashi discloses that electrical resistance may be adjusted as desired by increasing the number of slits (see Ohashi, paragraph [0060]). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the honeycomb structure (400) of Mase to provide for a larger number of slits in the reinforcing layers (Q) than in the electrode layers (P), such modification being expected to lead to increase heat uniformity of the honeycomb structure (400) as evidenced by Ohashi (see Ohashi, paragraph [0060]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase (US 2014/0291315).
With respect to claim 6, see discussion supra at paragraph 4. Mase does not explicitly disclose wherein electrode terminals are provided on the pair of electrode layers. However, the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that electrode terminals would be implicit within the design disclosed by Mase as the necessary connection point for supplying a source of electrical current to the electrodes (21) otherwise the honeycomb structure (400) of Mase would be completely incapable of operating as intended. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase (US 2014/0291315) in view of Okamoto (US 10,655,526).
With respect to claim 7, see discussion supra at paragraph 4. Mase does not explicitly disclose wherein the honeycomb structure (400) may be housed within a metal can. However, Mase explains that the honeycomb structure is intended to treat an exhaust gas stream (see Mase, paragraph [0006]). Moreover, it is readily known in the art that honeycomb structures such as that described by Mase may be housed within a cylindrical metal member (i.e. “can”) when such treatment operation is occurring as evidenced by Okamoto (see Okamoto, Abstract; and column 3, lines 60-61).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights