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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The following is in repones to the applicant’s remarks filed 10/27/25.
The applicant submits that the amendments overcome the previous rejection.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn. A new basis for rejection appears below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) by Kobayashi, US20020192539A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a method for manufacturing a carbon fiber electrode substrate by feeding a sheet-like an oxidized fiber substrate through a carbonization furnace to carbonize the oxidized fiber substrate [0004],
the method comprising: feeding, through (i) a pre-drying furnace upstream of the carbonization furnace (pre-carbonization furnace)[0051] and having a lower temperature than the carbonization furnace (carbonization furnace)[0052] and (ii) the carbonization furnace,
a plurality of oxidized fiber substrates in a state of being stacked in a thickness direction of the oxidized fiber substrates (stacked fiber substrates)[0080][fig. 15].
Regarding claim 22, Kobayashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the oxidized fiber substrates are made of felt or a woven fabric (felt or fabric)[0059]
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 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Kobayashi, US20020192539A1 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the temperature of the pre-drying furnace is set 50 to 300°C lower than the carbonization furnace [0051][0052]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the temperature of the pre-drying furnace is set at 300°C or more to less than 400°C (400 – 900 °C)[0051], and the temperature of the carbonization furnace is set at 400°C or more (900 – 1500 °C)[0052]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 21, 23, 24 - 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Kobayashi, US20020192539A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki, US20160130732A1 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 21, Kobayashi teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kobayashi does not teach wherein the plurality of oxidized fiber substrates are fed through a first carbonization furnace and a second carbonization furnace in sequence from upstream in a direction in which the plurality of oxidized fiber substrates are fed.
Suzuki teaches a method and apparatus for manufacturing a carbon fiber substrate [0001] wherein the method comprises a first (15) and second (17) carbonization furnace from upstream in a direction in which the plurality of oxidized fiber substrates are fed [fig. 1]. Further, Suzuki teaches that having a second carbonization furnace allows for processing of carbon fibers with less occurrence of breakages [0032]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the second furnace of Suzuki into the method of Chida to reduce the occurrence of breakages in the carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 23, Kobayashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein feeding of the oxidized fiber substrates is performed continuously (continuous fabric)[0088][fig. 15].
Kobayashi does not teach wherein feeding of the oxidized fiber substrates through the pre-drying furnace and the carbonization furnace is performed continuously (batch carbonization)[0088].
Suzuki teaches a method and apparatus for manufacturing a carbon fiber substrate [0001] wherein a feeding unit configured to continuously feed through the pre-drying furnace and the carbonization furnace (feeding rollers)[0016]. Further, Suzuki teaches the continuous process increase production efficiency [0042]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the feeder unit of Suzuki which allows for continuous processing into the apparatus of Kobayashi to increase production speed.
Regarding claim 24, Kobayashi teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a carbon fiber electrode substrate by feeding a sheet-like oxidized fiber substrate through a carbonization furnace to carbonize the oxidized fiber substrate [0004],
the apparatus comprising: the carbonization furnace; a pre-drying furnace disposed upstream of the carbonization furnace and having a lower temperature than the carbonization furnace [0050]; and feeding through the pre-drying furnace [0050] and the carbonization furnace [0051],
a plurality of oxidized fiber substrates in a state of being stacked in a thickness direction of the oxidized fiber substrates (stacked substrates)[fig. 15]
Kobayashi does not teach a feeding unit configured to feed through the pre-drying furnace and the carbonization furnace
Suzuki teaches a method and apparatus for manufacturing a carbon fiber substrate [0001] wherein a feeding unit configured to feed through the pre-drying furnace and the carbonization furnace (feeding rollers (13)(19))[0016][fig. 1]. Further, Suzuki teaches the continuous process increase production efficiency [0042]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the feeder unit of Suzuki which allows for continuous processing into the apparatus of Kobayashi to increase production efficiency.
Regarding claim 25, combined Kobayashi teaches the apparatus according to claim 24.
Further, Kobayashi teaches wherein the temperature of the pre-drying furnace is set 50 to 300°C lower than the carbonization furnace [0051][0052]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 26, combined Kobayashi teaches the apparatus according to claim 24.
Further, Kobayashi teaches wherein the temperature of the pre-drying furnace is set at 300°C or more to less than 400°C (400 – 900 °C)[0051], and the temperature of the carbonization furnace is set at 400°C or more (900 – 1500 °C)[0052]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 27, combined Kobayashi teaches the apparatus according to claim 24.
Kobayashi does not teach wherein the carbonization furnace includes a first carbonization furnace and a second carbonization furnace in sequence from upstream in a direction in which the plurality of oxidized fiber substrates are fed.
Suzuki teaches a method and apparatus for manufacturing a carbon fiber substrate [0001] wherein the method comprises a first (15) and second (17) carbonization furnace from upstream in a direction in which the plurality of oxidized fiber substrates are fed [fig. 1]. Further, Suzuki teaches that having a second carbonization furnace allows for processing of carbon fibers with less occurrence of breakages [0032]. Then, it would have been obvious t to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the second furnace of Suzuki into the method of Chida to reduce the occurrence of breakages in the carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 28, combined Kobayashi teaches the apparatus according to claim 24.
Further, Kobayashi teaches wherein the oxidized fiber substrates are made of felt or a woven fabric (felt or fabric)[0059].
Regarding claim 29, combined Kobayashi teaches the apparatus according to claim 24.
Further, Suzuki teaches wherein feeding of the oxidized fiber substrates through the pre-drying furnace and the carbonization furnace is performed continuously [0016][0042].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724