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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 11/21/2025.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The Drawings filed 01/25/2023 are approved by the examiner.
The IDS statements filed 01/25/2023, 04/23/2024, and 07/12/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
It is noted that, for most if not all of the foreign patent references in foreign language(s), Applicant has merely provided translations of the abstracts of the foreign patent references. While the references have been considered to the best of the Examiner’s ability, the contents of the references/pages in foreign languages have not been considered. Only the English portions of the submitted references have been considered. Applicant is reminded 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) requires a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each publication that is not in the English language.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite provision and manipulation of a "waste graphite" material to manufacture a heat dissipation sheet. After careful review of the original disclosure, the term "waste graphite" is a broad term. The original disclosure merely specifies this term describes the source or origin of the graphite component (e.g., from an anode material of a secondary cell, fuel cell, etc.) but never a precise meaning/definition/composition of what chemical structure the waste graphite requires or has (other than it contain graphite) differentiating it from a conventional graphite. For purposes of further examination, the term "waste graphite" is broadly construed such that any graphite will read on the term as no particular chemical structure is required by the term other than it comprise graphite.
In claim 10, the term "facility" is a broad term including, but not limited to, a literal facility (building/warehouse/etc.), an apparatus, or some sort of collective structure. Also, the terms "the center part" and "the lower part" describing where the bricks are disposed in the container are clear and definite as they have implicit antecedent basis in the container. A container implicitly has relative areas (upper/lower/center/etc.)
The same is true for "the outer wall of the container". A container implicitly has an outer wall (or else the structure would be incapable of containing / functioning as a container).
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites steps of “pulverizing a graphite material comprising waste graphite to produce a powder containing waste graphite” and “subjecting the powder containing waste graphite to the heat treatment at 900 °C to 1100 °C for 3 to 5 hours” clearly drawn to manipulating a “waste graphite”. However, the next step recites “pressurizing the expandable graphite obtained after heat treatment to produce a sheet” drawn to “the expandable graphite”. The term “the expandable graphite” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the expandable graphite is the result of heat treating the waste graphite/powder or some other component added/manipulated/etc. during or after the heat treatment step. The step (3) also lacks a clear nexus to steps (1) and (2) due to the difference in antecedent basis/components. If Applicant intended for the expandable graphite to be the result of the heat treatment step, step (2) could be amended to recite “subjecting the powder containing waste graphite to the heat treatment at 900 °C to 1100 °C for 3 to 5 hours to produce an expandable graphite”. If Applicant intended for the expandable graphite be something else, substantial clarification and/or amendment is required. For purposes of further examination and application of prior art, the claim is construed as the expandable graphite is the result of the heat treatment step.
Claims 2-12 are also indefinite for their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Foreign prior art references originally in non-English languages are with respect to the submitted English language machine translations of the references unless specified otherwise.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. (JP 2006-137860 A).
As to claim 1, Tashiro et al. teach a method providing a thermally conductive, i.e., heat dissipation, sheet (abstract). The method comprises providing a scale-shaped graphite material (p.3 to 4), intercalating the graphite by provision of an acidic substance and oxidizing agent (p.4), heat treating the acid-treated graphite at a temperature of 1,000°C to obtain expanded graphite (p.4 to 5), followed by at least one step of pressurizing the expanded graphite to produce a sheet (the expanded graphite can be directly formed into a high density sheet by a press or a roll, p.5; alternatively, a heat conductive sheet may also be formed later by pulverizing the obtained expanded graphite sheet and by forming a sheet comprising the pulverized expanded graphite by a heating roll or heat press, p.7).
While Tashiro et al. teach the provision of scale-shaped graphite material/powder rather than expressly pulverizing a graphite material to obtain a graphite material/powder as recited in the claimed first step, the reference nevertheless meets the claimed pulverizing step because Tashiro et al. teach the initial graphite is provided as a commercially obtained product (p.4) and commercial graphite powders are already pre-ground/pulverized.
The only remaining difference between Tashiro et al. and the claimed invention is Tashiro et al. fail to teach the graphite heat treatment step specifically occurs at 900-1,100°C for a duration of 3 to 5 hours.
However, the reference meets the claimed limitations under a prima facie case of obviousness. Tashiro et al. teach the heat treatment is at a temperature of at least 1,000°C (Id., p.5), which overlaps the range claimed. Furthermore, Tashiro et al. teach the heat-treatment is provided to expand the acid-treated graphite (Id.) and the heat treatment further reduces volatile components and removes impurities in the graphite (p.4). At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary and tailor the duration of the heat treatment step via optimization and/or routine experimentation in order to obtain an optimal or even a sufficient expansion of the acid-treated graphite, especially to obtain one with beneficially reduced impurities, with a reasonable expectation of success absent a showing to the contrary. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 2, Tashiro et al. teach an intercalation step of adding and stirring a strong acid and an oxidizing agent between the pulverizing and heat treatment steps (Id., p.4; the Examples, e.g., p.8, exemplify the acid and oxidizer are stirred in).
As to claim 4, in the above expansion/heat-treatment/pressuring process, Tashiro et al. teaches the cited graphite is the only material provided in the method (Id.), which meets the claimed limitations the graphite material comprising the graphite consists of the graphite.
As to claim 5, Tashiro et al. teach the heat-treatment/intercalation/expansion process expands the graphite in the C-axis, i.e., vertical, direction of the graphite (top p.4), meaning the cross-section/diameter of the graphite remains the same when it is expanded. Tashiro et al. further teaches the expanded graphite preferably has a particle size/diameter of 50 to 500 microns (p.4). As the heat-treatment/intercalation/expansion process expands the graphite in the C-axis, i.e., vertical, direction of the graphite rather than the cross sectional (A/B or X/Y) axes, the initial/pulverized graphite has a particle diameter within that claimed.
As to claim 6, Tashiro et al. teach both sulfuric acid and nitric acid as suitable acid species as well as potassium permanganate as a suitable oxidizing agent species for provision in the intercalation process (p.4).
As to claim 7, Tashiro et al. teach the sulfuric acid is provided to obtain sufficient expansion of the graphite, the potassium permanganate is provided as an oxidizing agent used with the acidic substance, the nitric acid is provided as an acid with an additional oxidizing action, the acid concentration determines the target expansion ratio of the graphite, and all are preferably provided in the form of an aqueous solution (p.4). While Tashiro et al. fail to teach the components are provided in the recited concentration range, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary and tailor the concentration(s) of the acidic substance and oxidizing agent optimization and/or routine experimentation in order to obtain an optimal, targeted, or even a sufficient expansion of the graphite, with a reasonable expectation of success absent a showing to the contrary. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 8, the recited batch program of elevating and maintaining temperatures for certain durations is prima facie obvious over the reference for substantially the same reasons set forth in claim 1. For purposes of claim interpretation, the elevating steps are construed as meaning increasing from some initial starting temperature to the specified temperature over the specified duration and the maintaining step is construed as meaning as maintaining/fixing the specified temperature for the specified duration. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary and tailor the steps and duration(s) of the heat treatment step (beginning at room temperature after drying the acid-treated graphite per the paragraph bridging p.4-5) via optimization and/or routine experimentation in order to obtain an optimal or even a sufficient expansion of the acid-treated graphite, especially to obtain one with beneficially reduced impurities, with a reasonable expectation of success absent a showing to the contrary. A person of ordinary skill in the art would intuitively recognize slowly changing the temperature during the heat treatment process would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art to prevent thermal shock of the heat treated product. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 12, Tashiro et al. teach the expanded graphite sheet may have a thickness of 0.5-1.5 mm (p.5), which falls within the claimed range. Alternatively, Tashiro et al. teach an exemplary heat conductive sheet thickness, made by pressing, of 1 mm (Example 1), which falls within the claimed range.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. (JP 2006-137860 A) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 12 above, and further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 2018/0126693 A1).
The disclosure of Tashiro et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Tashiro et al. fail to teach a blend of the graphite powder and an additional carbon in a weight ratio of 90:10 to 60:40.
However, Tsukamoto et al. similarly teach a heat radiating, i.e., heat dissipation, sheet comprising a mixed graphite, specifically a foamed graphite and a filler (abstract). Tsukamoto et al.’s disclosure of how the foamed graphite is made reveals it is merely an expanded graphite (see para. 0036 disclosing the foamed graphite is made by grinding a natural graphite into particles, immersing in an acid, and heating to a high temperature to be foamed, i.e., expanded). Tsukamoto et al. teach further providing an additional thermally conductive filler such as artificial graphite or carbon fiber in combination with the foamed/expanded graphite in order to enhance thermal conductivity in a plane direction of the finally obtained thermally conductive, heat dissipation sheet (para. 0006 and 0023). The mixed graphite component comprises 80-95 wt.% of the foamed graphite (abstract and para. 0020); since the mixed graphite comprises the foamed graphite and the filler (Id., abstract), this means the mixed graphite comprises the expanded graphite and the additional (artificial graphite or carbon fiber) filler in a weight ratio of 95:5 to 80:20, which overlaps the claimed range.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the additional thermally conductive filler (e.g., artificial graphite or carbon fiber) in the disclosed relative amount/ratio with expanded graphite as taught by Tsukamoto et al. in the expanded graphite-containing heat dissipating sheet of Tashiro et al. in order to enhance thermal conductivity in a plane direction of the finally obtained thermally conductive, heat dissipation sheet with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. (JP 2006-137860 A) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 12 above, and further in view of KR 2015-0015950 A.
The disclosure of Tashiro et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Tashiro et al. fail to teach, prior to performing the heat treatment step producing the expanded graphite, providing water under the graphite powder for water vapor to pass between the powder.
However, KR 2015-0015950 A is similarly drawn to manufacturing expanded graphite where it is preferably to provide a steam, i.e., water vapor, treatment for 1 to 24 hours prior to performing a heat treatment step (p.2). The steam treatment inserts molecules between the graphite layers which expands the interlayer spaces of the graphite (p.3), meaning water vapor passes between and through the graphite powder. The examples demonstrate a water-based solution is mixed with crushed graphite prior to raising the temperature to perform the treatment, meaning water is disposed under the graphite powder.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the steam treatment as taught by KR 2015-0015950 A in Tashiro et al.’s process in order to expand the graphite with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest a method of manufacturing a heat dissipating sheet comprising, inter alia, heat treating graphite in a facility/apparatus comprising an airtight furnace, gas and dust collector, and bonded graphite bricks and refractory bricks in a ratio of 5:5 to 8:2 surrounded by stainless steel.
Tashiro et al. (JP 2006-137860 A) Tashiro et al. teach a method providing a thermally conductive, i.e., heat dissipation, sheet (abstract) comprising providing a scale-shaped graphite material (p.3 to 4), intercalating the graphite by provision of an acidic substance and oxidizing agent (p.4), heat treating the acid-treated graphite at a temperature of 1,000°C to obtain expanded graphite (p.4 to 5), followed by at least one step of pressurizing the expanded graphite to produce a sheet (p.5 & p.7). While Tashiro et al. teach the heat treatment occurs in a heating furnace (p.8), Tashiro et al. fail to teach or suggest the precise details of the heating furnace as claimed.
KR 2015-0015950 A teach a manufacturing method for expanded graphite comprising pulverizing graphite powder, performing a steam treatment, and heat treatment (p.2). While the examples teach the heat treatment occurs in a muffle furnace (p.3), the reference fails to teach or suggest the precise details of the heating furnace as claimed.
Kitayama et al. (JP H05-141868 A) teach an electrical melting furnace with an improved heat conductivity property therein (abstract) comprising high thermal conductive layers made from a refractory materials having a higher thermal conductivity (such as graphite bricks) than refractory materials of other furnace wall portions (such as magnesia bricks, alumina chrome oxide bricks, or magnesia chrome oxide bricks) (p.4) as well as an outer furnace shell made of steel (p.4). While Kitayama et al. teaches a blend of graphite bricks and refractory bricks and an outer steel shell, Kitayama et al. fail to teach the recited ratio of graphite bricks to refractory bricks nor that they are bonded with a bonding agent. Kitayama et al. also arguably fail to teach the furnace is airtight, as claimed, as Fig. 4 showing a cross section of the entire furnace depicts air gaps between the carbon electrodes 6 in the furnace lid 5. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not provide Kitayama et al.’s apparatus with any of the other cited references of record with any reasonable expectation of success as Kitayama et al.’s electrical melting furnace is for melting certain materials such as rock wool, municipal waste/ash, etc. rather than heat-treating/thermally-expanding a (non-melting) graphite material, as claimed.
KR 2015-0021460 A (X reference on Form PCT 210) teaches a method to manufacture a graphite heat dissipation sheet comprising preparing graphite waste particles which have a swollen interlayer by treating with an acid, promoting an interlayer exfoliation of the graphite waste particles by thermal treatment, sieving and milling to adjust particle size, mixing with a polymer resin, and forming the heat dissipation sheet (abstract). The reference fails to teach or suggest further details of the heat treatment apparatus, let alone the precise details of the heating furnace as claimed.
Zhamu et al. (US 2014/0190676 A1) teach a graphene material-based integrated finned heat sink made by heat treating a graphene oxide gel (abstract). Zhamu et al. also teach admitted prior art of making a flexible graphite foil or composite by intercalating graphite particles, exfoliating the graphite materials, mixing with/without a resin, and pressing/shaping (see, e.g., Fig. 1(a) & para. 0183). While Zhamu et al. teach graphite may be intercalated in a tube furnace to form exfoliated graphite (para. 0128 & 0157), Zhamu et al. fail to teach or suggest any further details of the tube furnace, let alone the precise details of the heating furnace as claimed.
Kim (US 2020/0260614 A1, earlier published as WO 2019/066543 A1) teach a method for producing a thermally conductive thin film comprising graphite (abstract). The method comprises producing/obtaining a synthetic graphite powder, screening, pretreating under a pressurized or decompressed condition, adding an intercalant, thermal treatment to expand the synthetic graphite powder, rolling the expanded graphite powder to make a thermally conductive thin film (Fig. 1; see also, generally, p.2 to 5). Other than Kim teaching the thermal treatment includes a reactor and is carried out at a temperature between 1,000 to 3,000°C (para. 0107-0111 & 0175), the reference fails to teach or suggest further details of the heat treatment apparatus, let alone the precise details of the heating furnace as claimed.
The remaining references listed on Forms 892, 1449, and PCT 210 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or described above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
January 30, 2026