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 .
This Final rejection is in response to the Applicant’s claim amendment received on 11/10/2025, in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/09/2025. Applicant amended claim 1 “providing” versus “preparing” changes the scope of the claim. The term preparing means you make something whereas providing means you have something. Thus, claim 1 as written is broader as such you can provide something that is already made and engrave it to create a deposition path.
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.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is noted that earlier claim 13 though is clarified to amend by deleting the term preferably, however, claim 14 still includes the term “preferable” and it renders the claim indefinite as well.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al. (US 2020/0023606 A1) in view of Fuji Heavy Ind LTD (JP 3032028 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 11-13, and 16-17, Sekine et al. teach a method for producing objects comprising at least one honeycomb panel (see Figs. 1 – 16 item 1 – honeycomb sandwich structure including core 3 disposed between plates 2; [0009]-[0091]), said method comprising the steps of: providing at least one honeycomb panel comprising a pair of plates (2,2; Figs 1-16, specifically Fig. 1 item 2,2 plates sandwiching the core 3; [0040] discloses material for face plate is not limited) and a honeycomb structure interposed between said plates having recess said honeycomb panel so as to create a deposition path (P) having a predetermined depth (see Fig. 5 showing a recess formed and the core is filled with resin; see [0035]-[0037], [0040]-[0058] discloses filling the recess).
However, Sekine et al. fail to teach how the recess is formed (engraving step as claimed) and applying, by means of an additive manufacturing process, a filler material (4) along said deposition path (P) so as to at least partially fill said deposition path (P).
In the same field of endeavor, Fuji teaches method for producing objects comprising at least one honeycomb panel, said method comprising: the steps of: preparing at least one honeycomb panel, engraving said honeycomb panel so as to create a deposition path (groove/channel, see abstract; Figs. [0012]-[0026]) having a predetermined path, applying, by means of an additive manufacturing process (see [0017], application of molten resin in several layers), a filler material (molten resin) along said deposition path) so as to at least partially fill said deposition path. Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 16-17 pertaining to specifics on engraving and/or cutting are also obvious over the combination provided above as pertains to only forming desired shaped object which are already known in the art.
It would have been obvious to combine the method of forming honeycomb structure as taught by Sekine et al. with further including engraving step to make hole, and fill material along a deposition path, as taught by Fuji, for the purpose of producing desired shaped honeycomb structure.
Claim 3 pertains to basic optimization control parameter, such as a time duration of the applying the filler material as a function of depth (how much to be filled), one ordinary skill in the art working in the field of coating/filling would control time based on the depth of the filling needs for the purpose of reducing defect of overflow. It is noted that claims 7, 9-10, and 14-15, 17, pertains to particulars of the shape of the plates (non-uniform), geometry of the honeycomb, such would be within the level of one ordinary skill in the art given the fact that two plates can be aligned with honeycomb structure, as seen above, thus choosing specific shape plates or geometry of the honeycomb, via additive manufacturing would have been obvious based on the type of filter being produced, see Wang above, and similar processing using laser (etching, engraving), on the plate as suggested by Jochum et al., in combination of filling taught by Sekine, would apply to make recesses and fill material within efficiently to form a honeycomb filter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1- 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2023/0043070 A1 – discloses laser plate making (etching) process or an engraving plate making process.
US 2007/0199643 A1- discloses opening -sealing apparatus for honeycomb molded body, the paste filling device is preferably equipped with a temperature control mechanism used for controlling the temperature of the plug material paste.
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 NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743