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 Objections
Claims 1-2 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, it is suggested to (1) in line 6, after “communicate” and before “adjacent” insert “with”; (2) in line 6, after “cells” and before “separated” insert “of the plurality of cells”; (3) in line 7, amend “the pore” to “a pore of the plurality of pores”; (4) in line 7, amend “the thickness” to “a thickness”, and (5) in line 14, amend “the square” to “a square”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 2, it is suggested to (1) in line 2, after “the first end face” delete “side”; (2) in line 3, after “face” delete “side”, and (3) amend “each of the cells” to “each cell of the plurality of cells”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 6, in line 1, it is suggested to amend “the X” to “the value X” in order to ensure consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 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.
In reference to claim 3, the limitation “a thickness T1 of the partition wall” is recited in lines 1-2. It is unclear if thickness T1 is the same as thickness T recited in claim 1 or is meant to be a thickness different from the partition wall thickness T. For the purpose of compact prosecution, T1 will be interpreted as referring back to thickness T. It is suggested to amend “a thickness T1” to “the thickness T”.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayama (US 2020/0003094).
In reference to claims 1 and 6, Kayama teaches a honeycomb structure having a cylindrical shaped honeycomb body ([0039]; FIG. 1) (corresponding to a honeycomb structure comprising a pillar-shaped honeycomb structure body). The honeycomb body includes partition walls arranged in a lattice arrangement to form a plurality of cells ([0040]; [0042]) (corresponding to a partition wall arranged so as to surround a plurality of cells).
Exhaust gas passes through the partition wall and flows on the surface of the partition walls and through the cells from a first end surface to a second end surface ([0041]-[0043]; [0050]-[0053]; FIG. 2; FIG. 3A) (corresponding to a plurality of cells which serve as fluid through channels extending from a first end face to a second end face). The cells communicate with each other through communicating pores in the porous partition walls ([0042]-[0045]; [0056]) (corresponding to the partition wall is formed by a porous body in which a plurality of pores that communicate adjacent cells separated by partition walls are formed).
Kayama further teaches the honeycomb structure body has a curve ratio L/T, where L/T indicates a ratio of a thickness T (µm) of the partition walls to an average passage length L (µm) of the communicating pores formed in the partition walls ([0122]) (corresponding to a ratio (L/T) of a through channel length L (µm) of the pore in the thickness direction of the partition wall to a thickness T (µm) of the partition wall is defined as a bending degree A). The curve ratio is not less than 1.2 and no more than 1.8 ([0122]; [0129]) (corresponding to the partition wall constituting the honeycomb structure body has an average bending degree AAve, which is an average value of the bending degree A, of 1.10 to 1.40).
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).
FIGS. 12 and 15-20 show frequency histograms of pore passage lengths for the working examples. The values from FIG. 16, provided below, have been arranged in a data table below to calculated a root mean square deviation of the curve ratio. The value of the average curve ratio is found to be 1.36 (i.e.,
∑
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
o
r
e
s
*
L
/
T
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
o
r
e
p
a
s
s
a
g
e
s
) and the square of the deviation is 0.0056 (i.e.,
∑
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
o
r
e
s
*
(
L
T
-
A
a
v
e
)
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
o
r
e
s
), thus a value X = average curve ratio divided by the square of the deviation of the curve ratio is 240.66, which falls within the presently claimed range (corresponding to a value X (X=AAve/B2) obtained by dividing the average vending degree AAve by the square of a deviation bending degree B, which is
PNG
media_image1.png
720
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a deviation of the bending degree A, is 100 to 300; X is 150 to 300).
pore length (range)
midpoint length (L)
C= L/T
D = number of pore passages
C*D
deviation = D*(C-Aave)2
320-330
325
1.16
135
157
5
330-340
335
1.20
185
221
5
340-350
345
1.23
435
536
7
350-360
355
1.27
950
1204
8
360-370
365
1.30
2320
3024
7
370-380
375
1.34
2870
3844
1
380-390
385
1.38
2680
3685
1
390-400
395
1.41
1650
2328
5
400-410
405
1.45
870
1258
7
410-420
415
1.48
370
548
6
420-430
425
1.52
300
455
8
430-440
435
1.55
150
233
6
440-450
445
1.59
120
191
6
450-460
455
1.63
50
81
4
partition wall thickness T (µm)
280
total number of pore passages
13085
Aave
1.36
B = RMS
0.075
X
240.66
In reference to claim 2, Kayama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kayama further teaches the cells are composed of first cells and second cells, wherein the first cells are open on the first end surface and are closed by a plug member on the second end surface ([0052]). The second cells are closed by a plug member on the first end surface and are open on the second end surface ([0052]). The first cells and the second cells are arranged alternately and adjacently with each other ([0053]) (corresponding to a plugging portion disposed at an open end on the first end face side or the second end face side of each of the cells).
In reference to claim 3, Kayama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kayama further teaches a thickness of the partition wall is not less than 100 µm and not more than 400 µm ([0100]) (corresponding to a thickness T1 of the partition wall is 100 to 300 µm).
In reference to claim 4, Kayama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kayama further teaches a porosity of the partition wall is not less than 55% and not more than 75% ([0045]) (corresponding to a porosity of the partition wall is 35 to 70%).
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).
In reference to claim 5, Kayama teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kayama further teaches the partition walls have an average pore diameter of not less than 12 µm and not more than 30 µm ([0044]) (corresponding to an average pore diameter of the partition wall is 8 to 30 µm).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Kayama (US 2020/0101442), 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