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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. (WO 2017/051806) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2017/0274354) (Yamamoto) and Tsukada (JP H06-15044).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of WO 2017/051806 and JP H06-15044. The citation of prior art refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 1 and 3, Horie teaches a honeycomb filter comprising a porous honeycomb structure having a plurality of flow paths, and a plurality of sealing portions that close one end of some of the flow paths and the other ends of the remaining flow paths of the plurality of flow paths (p. 2, ¶5; p. 3, ¶3-4) (corresponding toa honeycomb filter comprising: a honeycomb structure having a porous partition wall disposed so as to surround a plurality of cells which serve as a fluid through channel extending from an inflow end face to an outflow end face; and a plugging portion provided at either an end on the inflow end face or an end on the outflow end face of the plurality of cells). The thickness of each partition wall is 0.125 to 0.30 mm (p. 3, ¶9) (corresponding to a thickness of the partition wall is 152 to 254 µm).
The cell density of the porous honeycomb structure is 150 to 350 cpsi (i.e., 23.25 to 54.25 cells/cm2) (p. 4, ¶1) (corresponding to a cell density of the honeycomb structure is 38.8 to 62.0 cells/cm2). The porosity of the honeycomb structure is 55 to 70% (p. 4, ¶4) (corresponding to a porosity of the partition wall measured by the mercury press-in method is 60 to 75%). The pore size distribution of the porous honeycomb structure is set to D10 of 5 to 15 µm, D50 of 7 to 20 µm and D90 of 10 to 40 µm, where Dn is the pore size at which n% of the total pore volume has a smaller pore size (p. 4, ¶4) (corresponding to a pore diameter D10 at which the cumulative pore volume is 10% of the total pore volume is 5.5 to 7.5µm in the pore diameter distribution of the partition wall measured by the mercury press-in method; a pore diameter D50 at which the cumulative pore volume is 50% of the total pore volume is 11 to 15 µm in a pore diameter distribution of the partition wall measured by the mercury press-in method; a pore diameter D90 at which the cumulative pore volume is 90% of the total volume is 35.0 µm or less in the pore diameter distribution of the partition wall measured by the mercury press-in method).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Horie does not explicitly teach a partition wall wet area ratio, which is a value obtained by dividing a wet area of pores formed in the porous partition wall by a cross-sectional area of the pores, is 0.25 to 0.35 m2/m2, as presently claimed.
Yamamoto teaches a honeycomb structure including porous partition walls defining a plurality of cells ([0012]). A wet area of the partition walls is 16,500 µm2 or more and 21,500 µm2 or less (i.e., 16.5ⅹ10-9 m2 or more and 21.5ⅹ10-9 m2 or less) ([0013]; [0048]) (corresponding to a wet area A of pores formed in the porous partition wall). By having a wet area of the partition wall be 16,500 µm2 or more, the honeycomb structure has a larger contact area of the partition walls with an exhaust gas and has an excellent exhaust gas diffusibility. On this account, the honeycomb structure can achieve a higher purification performance ([0032]; [0045]).
In light of the motivation of Yamamoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have a wet area of the partition wall of Kuki be 16,500 µm2 or more and 21,500 µm2 or less, in order to provide excellent exhaust gas diffusibility and achieve a honeycomb structure having higher purification performance.
Tsukada teaches a honeycomb structure formed from a porous sintered body (p. 3, Means for solving the problem, lines 29-42). An average cross-sectional area of the pores of the porous structure is 0.01~250,000 µm2, more preferably 0.25~90,000 µm2 (p. 3, lines 31-32; p. 4, line15-16). When the average cross-sectional area of the open pores is at 0.01 µm2 or less, the resistance to the passage of the fluid passing through the open pores increases. On the other hand, if the average cross-sectional area of the open pores is greater than 250,000 μm2, the strength of the porous body itself will be low (p. 4, lines 11-18).
In light of the motivation of Tsukada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the pores of Horie in view of Yamamoto have an average cross-sectional area between 0.25~90,000 µm2 (i.e., 2.5x10-13 ~ 9x10-8 m2), in order to ensure the strength of the honeycomb structure will not be low and the resistance of the fluid passage is not increase.
Given that Horie in view of Yamamoto and Tsukada teaches the wet area formed in the porous partition wall, A, is 16.5ⅹ10-9 m2 or more and 21.5ⅹ10-9 m2 less and the cross-sectional area of the pores, S, is 2.5x10-13~9x10-8 m2, a wet area ratio of the honeycomb structure of Horie in view of Yamamoto and Tsukada obtained by dividing the wet area A by the cross-sectional area S will be 0.18 to 0.86x104 m2/m2, which overlaps the presently claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments to the Specification filed 05/19/2026, the pervious Objections to the Specification are withdrawn.
In response to amended claim 1, the previous Claim Objections of record are withdrawn.
Applicant primarily argues:
“The PTO's assertion is erroneous because the disclosure of Tsukada is specifically directed to a silicon carbide honeycomb structure having a catalyst loaded on the partition wall (see Tsukada, Abstract, for example). Tsukada discloses that the partition wall of the honeycomb structure is formed from plate-shaped SiC crystals having an aspect ratio of 5 to 30, an average length in the major axis direction of 0.5 to 1,000 µm pores, which produces a three-dimensional mesh structure having pores with a cross-sectional area of 0.25 to 90,000 µm2 (see Tsukada, page 3, Means for Solving Problem, and Fig. 3, for example). Tsukada also discloses that silicon carbide is used to form the partition wall, because using A12O3, SiO2, or similar materials (e.g., cordierite) does not provide the thermal conductivity and heat resistance necessary to prevent melting of the honeycomb structure due to the heat produced by the exothermic chemical reaction of the catalyst (see Tsukada, page 2, lines 14-21, for example). However, the honeycomb structure disclosed in Horie is formed of cordierite as a main component, and again, does not disclose a catalyst loaded on the partition wall of the honeycomb structure. Therefore, there would have been no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have considered modifying Horie based on the teachings of Tsukada, because there is nothing in the record to teach or suggest that cordierite is formed of plate-shaped crystals having the aspect ratio and average length in the major axis direction necessary to produce the three-dimensional mesh structure having pores with a cross-sectional area of 0.25 to 90,000 µm2 disclosed in Tsukada. There also would have been no reason for that person to consider modifying Horie based on the Tsukada, because Tsukada discloses that the catalyst loaded on the partition wall creates enough heat through an exothermic chemical reaction to melt a honeycomb structure made of materials such as A12O3, SiO2, or similar materials, which would have included the cordierite material used to form the honeycomb structure disclosed in Horie. Yamamoto fails to overcome the deficiencies of Horie and Tsukada.”
Remarks, p. 8-9
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Tsukada is only used as teaching reference in order to teach an average cross-sectional area of each open cell of a porous sintered body (i.e., partition wall) being in a range of 0.01-25,000 µm2. It is noted that the “test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference...Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that “combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
Horie, Yamamoto and Tsukada are all drawn to honeycomb filters. Further, Tsukada expressly teaches when the average cross-sectional area of the open pores is at 0.01 µm2 or less, the resistance to the passage of the fluid passing through the open pores increases. On the other hand, if the average cross-sectional area of the open pores is greater than 250,000 μm2, the strength of the porous body itself will be low (p. 4, lines 11-18). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, it is the examiner’s position one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the pores Horie in view of Yamamoto have an average cross-sectional area between 0.25~90,000 µm2 (i.e., 2.5x10-13 ~ 9x10-8 m2), in order to ensure the strength of the honeycomb structure will not be low and the resistance of the fluid passage is not increase.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights