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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0057] amend “0.03” to “0.30”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, in line 9 amend “the total” to “a total” and in line 12 amend “a total” to “the total”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 flid 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
Upon further consideration, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Kuki (US 2018/0264453) in view of Yamamoto and Suwabe et al. (JP 2006-096634) (Suwabe). While Suwabe discloses a cross-sectional area of the pores is 1000 µm2 or more (i.e., 1ⅹ10-9 m2 or more) ([0016]; [0026]), in order to meet the presently claimed partition wall wet area ratio the cross-sectional area of the pores would need to be at least 50,000 µm2. As the Applicant noted in the Remarks filed 12/30/2025 p. 5 a diameter of the essentially circular pores would be about 252 µm. Therefore, in order to meet the claim limitations Kuki in view of Yamamoto and Suwabe would require pores having a diameter that is greater than or nearly the entire thickness of the partition wall.
However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections, as discussed above.
Applicant primarily argues:
“The amendment to claim 1 is meant to emphasize the unexpected results associated with the claimed honeycomb filter shown in Table 1 of the present specification.
To this end, the honeycomb filters of Examples 1-4 each meet all of the limitations now recited in claim 1, resulting in an improvement in at least pressure loss and purification performance, as compared to the conventional honeycomb filter of Comparative Example 1 (see present specification, paragraphs [0051]-[0057]). In particular, the honeycomb filter of Example 4 includes a partition wall having a D10 of 6.5 µm and a D50 of 14.2 µm, and a wet area ratio of 0.30 m2/m2 (which each meet claim 1), resulting in superior pressure loss and purification performance, as compared to the honeycomb filter of Comparative Example 1, which includes a partition wall having a D10 of 8.7 µm and a D50 of 14.3 µm, and a wet area ratio of 0.20 m2/m2 (which each do not meet claim 1).”
Remarks, p. 6
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
The data to establish unexpected results is not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
The data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims. Specifically, the data only provides a honeycomb structure consisting of a specific material (i.e., cordierite) and having a specific diameter (i.e., 132.6 mm), a specific length in an extending direction of cells (i.e., 127.3 mm), a specific partition wall thickness, a specific cell density, a specific porosity, a specific D10, a specific D50, a specific D90 and a specific partition wall wet area ratio. While the claims broadly encompass a honeycomb structure of any material, having any diameter, any length, any partition wall thickness of a wall between 152 to 254 µm, any cell density between 38.8 and 62.0 cell/cm2, any porosity of the partition wall between 60 and 75%, any D10 between 5.5 and 6.5, any D50 between 11 and 14.2 µm, any D90 and any partition wall wet area ratio between 0.25 and 0.35 m2/m2.
Further, there is no data when (a) the thickness of the partition wall is at its lower or upper limit (i.e., 152 µm or 524 µm), (b) the cell density is at its lower or upper limit (i.e., 38.8 or 62.0 cell/cm2), (c) the D10 at its lower limit (i.e., 5.5 µm), (d) the D50 at its lower limit (i.e., 11 µm), (e) the porosity is at its lower or upper limit (i.e., 60% or 75%) or (f) the partition wall wet area ratio at its upper limit (i.e., 0.35 m2/m2). As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of (a)-(f) as discussed above.
Additionally, there is no proper side-by-side comparison between the working examples and the comparative examples. The closes side-by-side comparison is between Example 4 and Comparative Example 1. The Applicant argues that the D10, D50 and wet area ratio inside the claimed range result in superior pressure loss and purification performance as compared to the honeycomb filter of Comparative Example. However, Example 4 and Comparative Example 1 differ in each of partition wall thickness, cell density, porosity, D10, D50, D90 and wet area ratio. It is unclear if the advantageous results of the present invention are from just the D10, D50 and wet area ratio or from a combination of additional variables (i.e., porosity, wall thickness, cell density, D90).
Even if there were proper side-by-side comparisons, the data to establish unexpected results remains unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, i.e., the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the present claims.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Suwabe et al. (US 2003/0165662), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejection using this reference would be cumulative to the rejection of record set forth above.
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