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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/19/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-8, 15-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (EP 2980017 A1) (Maeda).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches a method for producing graphite and particles for graphite production (Maeda, Title; Abstract), comprising the steps of introducing graphitizable particulates into an inside of a vertical graphitization furnace from an upper part thereof (i.e., a process for producing graphite in a vertical graphitization furnace, comprising: at least one process space which delimits a heating zone; particulate graphitizable material is fed through an entrance into the process space), heating the particulates at 2200°C to 3200°C to graphitize the particulates (i.e., a temperature of from 2200°C to 3200°C is generated in the heating zone), the obtained graphite is removed through the bottom of the furnace (i.e., graphitizable material is conveyed through the heating zone of the process space, in which it is graphitized to give graphite; graphite obtained is discharged from the process space through an exit) (Maeda, Abstract, [0021-0022]).
Further, Maeda teaches the furnace comprises a cylindrical inner tube comprising a graphite inside wall surface and a heater on or over the outside of the inner tube which is electrically-heated wire (Maeda, [0017]; [0018]), wherein the cylindrical inner tube corresponds to the outer tube wall as it is taught to be item #18 in the instant disclosure (Specification, p. 7, line 17), and item #18 depicted in Figure 1 of the instant disclosure is the wall of the inner tube of the process space. Further, as the heater of Maeda may be on the inner tube, this corresponds with the limitation that the electrical heater comprises at least a portion of the process tube bounding the heating zone, as they are connected. The examiner interprets the heater as a unit being the electrical heater in contact with the process tube inner wall which comprises graphite.
Therefore, given the process tube and the heater on the outside of the inner tube of Maeda is substantially identical to the electric heater and the process tube used in the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that the process tube of Maeda would inherently have electrical resistance as it is the same material as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Further, Maeda teaches the graphitizable carbonaceous substance is optionally powdered before being introduced, wherein the average particle diameter of the powder of the graphitizable carbonaceous substance is preferably in a range of 10 to 20 μm (Maeda, [0033-0034]), which falls within the range of the presently claimed particle size (i.e., as variant A, graphitizable material whose particles have a particle size of less than 3 mm is used).
Further, Maeda teaches the furnace surrounds a tubular heating device (Maeda, [0017]) and the inside of the tube is preferably divided into a heating zone and a cooling zone from the upper part toward the bottom of the tube and the graphitizable material is introduced to the upper part of the heating zone of the tube (Maeda, [0019]). The later-introduced graphitizable material is accumulated on the earlier-introduced graphitizable material (Maeda, [0021]) (i.e., as variant C, a column of material is formed in a standing heating zone of a particular process space, said standing heating zone being encompassed by the heating zone, and graphitizable material which has been fed in through the entrance trickles from the top through a falling heating zone, which is likewise encompassed by the heating zone, onto the column of material).
Given that Maeda discloses the graphitization process that overlaps the presently claimed graphitization, including the heater being on the on the outside of the inner process tube and powdering the graphitizable carbonaceous material, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the heater on the outside of the inner process tube and to use the powdered graphitizable material, which is both disclosed by Maeda and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Maeda teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphitizable carbonaceous substance naturally dropped from an opening at an upper part of the tube is held in the tube at a constant volume above the bottom part (Maeda, [0017]) (i.e., the volume remains the same, therefore the volume entering equals the volume exiting), and wherein the graphite may be removed continuously without any break (Maeda, [0022]) (i.e., the same volume of material is fed into a particular process space per unit of time as the volume of graphite which is discharged from this process space per unit of time (claim 2); the graphitizable material is fed continuously or intermittently into a particular process space and graphite is discharged continuously or intermittently from this process space (claim 3)).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphitizable carbonaceous substance naturally dropped from an opening at an upper part of the tube is held in the tube at a constant volume above the bottom part (Maeda, [0017]) (i.e., a fill level of the column of material is kept largely constant in the case of variant C).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein inert gas is allowed to flow into the tube from the bottom part toward an upper part of the furnace (Maeda, [0021]) (i.e., in variant C, a gas is blown in countercurrent opposite to the falling direction of the graphitizable material into a falling heating zone).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein a graphitization furnace which has a plurality of process spaces and whose plurality of process spaces are operated in parallel in time is used. However, as the rate of graphite produced depends on the volume of the process space, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to use multiple process spaces of Maeda at once in order to increase the rate of graphite production.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of process spaces as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of process spaces, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to increase the rate of graphite production in order to produce the desired amount of graphite.
Regarding claims 7 and 15-18, Maeda teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphitizable carbonaceous substance is optionally powdered before being introduced into a graphitization furnace, wherein the average particle diameter of the powder of the graphitizable carbonaceous substance is preferably in a range of 10 to 20 μm (Maeda, [0033-0034]), which falls within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 8, Maeda teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphitizable material is heated to 2200°C to 3200°C in the heating zone (Maeda, [0020]), i.e., throughout the heating zone (i.e., the temperature of the heating zone is determined, in an upper end of the heating zone and/or in approximately a middle of the heating zone and/or at a lower end of the heating zone and/or at the column of material of each process tube present).
Regarding claim 21, Maeda teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein as seen in Figure 1 of Maeda, the inner process tube where graphitization occurs is shown to have a thinner wall than the additional process spaces (Maeda, [0023]), including the outer wall (Maeda, Figure 1) (i.e., a wall thickness of the process tube is reduced in the region of the heating zone).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwata et al. (US 4,820,905 A) (Iwata).
Regarding claim 22, Maeda teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the process tube is surrounded by a protective housing and the protective housing is surrounded by an insulating housing, wherein an area located between the protective housing and the insulating housing is at least partially filled with an insulation material; and an area located between the protective housing and the process tube is filled with an inert gas.
With respect to the difference, Iwata teaches a carbonizing furnace which includes a heating chamber, a heat insulator composed of carbon fiber felt and a ceramic fiber felt which covers the heating chamber such that the carbon fiber felt is in contact with the heating chamber and the ceramic fiber felt is separated by a space from the carbon fiber felt, and a housing enclosing the heating chamber and the heat insulator, and an inlet for filling the insulator with an inert gas (Iwata, Abstract), wherein the carbon fiber felt of Iwata corresponds to the protective housing and insulation material, the housing of Iwata corresponds to the insulating housing, and the space between the carbon fiber felt and ceramic fiber felt of Iwata that is filled with inert gas corresponds to the area located between the protective housing and the process tube that is filled with inert gas.
As Iwata expressly teaches, this configuration provides a furnace which can be run continuously at a higher temperature and stably for an extended period of time without a sudden stop due to short-circuiting caused by a conductive heat insulator (Iwata, Col. 1, lines 60-65).
Iwata is analogous art as it is drawn to a furnace for heating carbon materials (Iwata, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of including the heat insulator composed of carbon fiber felt and a ceramic fiber felt which covers the heating chamber such that the carbon fiber felt is in contact with the heating chamber and the ceramic fiber felt is separated by a space from the carbon fiber felt, and a housing enclosing the heating chamber and the heat insulator, and an inlet for filling the insulator with an inert gas as disclosed by Iwata, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the furnace of Maeda by including the heat insulator of Iwata in order to provide a furnace which can be run continuously at a higher temperature and stably for an extended period of time without a sudden stop due to short-circuiting caused by a conductive heat insulator, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, Maeda, in view of Iwata, teaches the process as claimed in claim 22, wherein the heat insulating portion of the housing where carbon fiber felt and ceramic fiber felt are located and the space is provided is also filled with an inert gas through an inlet (i.e., corresponds to the lower cap coupled to the inert gas inlet). The substitution of air in the insulator portion with the inert gas is conducted by expelling air from an outlet (i.e., corresponds to the upper cap) (Iwata, Col. 4, lines 66-68; Col. 5, lines 1-3) (i.e., the area located between the protective housing and the process tube includes an upper cap and a lower cap which extends beyond the insulating housing and at least one inert gas inlet is coupled to at least one of the upper cap or the lower cap).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 104724702 A) (Zhao).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 104724702 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 24, Maeda teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphite is removed from the furnace to a lower part (Maeda, Abstract), but does not explicitly teach the exit is laterally offset from the process space, and the exit is connected to the process space by an outlet conveyor, the outlet conveyor comprising a screw conveyor to control a discharge speed of the graphite.
With respect to the difference, Zhao teaches a graphitization furnace which uses a discharge screw conveyor to remove the product after cooling (Zhao, [0017]), and wherein the discharge screw conveyor is item #3 in Figure 1 of Zhao which displays the exit of the conveyor being laterally offset from the process space.
As Zhao expressly teaches, the discharge screw conveyor ensures continuous production of graphite (Zhao, [0020]).
Zhao is analogous art as it is drawn to a graphitization furnace (Zhao, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of discharging graphite to the exit using a screw conveyor as disclosed by Zhao, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the graphitization furnace of Maeda by transporting the formed graphite to the exit using a screw conveyor in order to have a continuous production of graphite which would necessarily include controlling the discharge speed of the graphite, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“As amended, Applicant has clarified that the electrical heater comprises at least a portion of the process tube wall itself. This is allowable by virtue of the entire tube wall being made of graphite, i.e. an electrically conductive material. See, for e.g., page 7 lines 17-21 and page 8 line 20 - page 9 line 2 in the translation of the specification originally filed in the present application.
By contrast, as explained at [0020] of Maeda, only the inner portion of the tube wall is made of graphite, not the entire wall. In order for the tube wall itself to comprise the electrical heater in Maeda, the inner portion of the tube wall would have to be electrified which is not possible inside the furnace. Instead, as identified in the Office Action, Maeda utilizes a separate wire heater wrapped around the non-graphite exterior of the tube.”
Remarks, p. 6-7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While applicant argues the heater of Maeda does not meet the limitation of “the electrical heater comprising at least a portion of the process tube bounding the heating zone” because only the surface of the inner tube is made of graphite, it is the examiner’s position that Maeda does teach the clamed electrical heater comprising the at least a portion of the process tube bounding the heating zone. As stated above in item #7, the examiner interprets the electrical heater as a unit being the electrical heater in contact with the process tube inner wall which comprises graphite. Therefore, the electrical heater comprises the process tube which bounds the heating zone.
Applicant further argues:
“Though Applicant reserves the right to argue each dependent claim as necessary throughout prosecution, with respect to dependent claim 21 specifically, FIG. 1 of Maeda cited at paragraph 14 in the Office Action asserts that FIG. 1 of Maeda shows an inner process tube having a thinner wall that the additional process spaces. FIG. 1 of Maeda shows the inner tube 3 to be tube having a wall of in uniformly thick line, i.e. there is no teaching or suggestion that any portion is any thicker or less thick than any other portion.
The specification likewise provides no basis for a person having ordinary skill in the art to consider varying the thickness of the tube wall to control the resistance of the same. For example, the Office Action cites paragraph [0023] of Maeda for teaching a thinner tube wall, however the entirety of paragraph [0023] is quoted below, with no mention of wall thickness found anywhere therein:
…
Paragraph [0023] mentions the ratio of length of heating zone to the cooling zone within the inner tube/furnace, however makes no mention of the wall thickness changing at any portion within the tube or furnace. Insofar as Maeda fails to teach, suggest, or disclose any change in the wall thickness anywhere along the inner tube of the furnace, Applicant respectfully submits that Maeda fails to teach or suggest dependent claim 21.”
Remarks, p. 7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Claim 21 recites “a wall thickness of the process tube is reduced in the region of the heating zone”, however, as the process tube of Maeda is encapsulated in the heating zone, the upper portion of the process tube being element #3 of Fig. 1, the examiner interprets the “reduced” wall thickness as being compared to the wall thickness of other process spaces, including the outer tube, and as the outer tube is clearly thicker than the inner tube that is the heating zone in Fig. 1, the wall thickness is reduced for the heating zone.
Further, paragraph [0023] is only referenced to show where Maeda discusses the heating zone, Fig. 1 is relied upon to teach the reduced wall thickness of the heating zone.
Applicant further argues:
“With respect to dependent claim 24 specifically, Applicant has amended the claim to further clarify that the exit is laterally offset from the process space. See, for e.g., Fig. 1 where the exit at the bottom of the Fig. is laterally offset to the left of process space 22. Both Maeda and Zhao show vertical furnaces where the exit is laterally aligned with the process space. See, for e.g., Maeda FIG. 1 at the interior of tube 3 and the exit positioned above the container receiving G; Zhao Fig. 1, elements 16 and 22.”
Remarks, p. 7-8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that Maeda does not expressly teach the claimed exit being laterally offset from the process space. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), which admits that Maeda does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Zhao is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Maeda. See item #20 above.
Further, while Applicant states that Zhao does not teach the exit being laterally offset from the process space and points to elements 16 and 22 of Fig. 1 in Zhao, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Elements 16 and 22 are taught by Zhao to be the graphitizing furnace (16) and the support (22) that is connected to the furnace, neither are taught to be the exit. It is clear in Fig. 1 of Zhao that the graphite is brought to the exit by the conveyor where it exits the process space laterally offset from the process space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights