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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over document JP 5872178 B2 (herein referred to as ‘178).
Regarding claim1, ‘178 discloses a honeycomb structure for a heat exchanger, the honeycomb structure comprising: an inner peripheral wall 8; an outer peripheral wall 3; and partition walls 7 disposed between the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall, the partition walls defining cells 5 each extending from a first end face to a second end face (see Fig. 6)., wherein, in a cross section orthogonal to an extending direction of the cells, the partition walls comprise one or more first partition walls extending in a radial direction. ‘178 does not disclose the diameters or the opening ratio as recited, however, since the prior art discloses the structure of the device, the recited diameters and the opening ratio would have involved a mere change in the size of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the recited one or more second partition walls would have involved duplication of working parts of a device, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the device will still carry its intended tasks with the modification.
Regarding claims 3-6, the opening ratios would have involved a mere change in the size of a component as stated above.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, ‘178 discloses a heat exchanger comprising the recited honeycomb structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 2 that JP ‘178 fails to teach the inner diameter of the asserted peripheral wall, and the opening ratio of the honeycomb structure. While the examiner agrees that JP ‘178 fails to teach the claimed range, the claim is not patentable over the teaching of JP ‘178. As explained on page 4 of JP ‘178 (translation), the diameter and the thickness of these walls are for reducing the chances of cracks. Furthermore, JP ’178 six examples of different parameters, in which the concerns of thickness, diameter, and openings are similar to applicant’s invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive to applicant’s inner and outer diameter claimed range as well as the opening ratio, since this would merely involve routine experimentation to find an optimal result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Len Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763