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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 18 June 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action of 19 March 2026 are withdrawn.
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 1-10, 13-16, 20, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Non-Patent Literature “Electrochemical Graphitization: An Efficient Conversion of Amorphous Carbons to Nanostructured Graphites” to Jin et al. (Jin) in view of CN 112725872 A to Luo et al. (Luo).
As to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 20, Jin teaches a method for converting amorphous carbon fiber to graphitized carbon fiber, the method comprising immersing the amorphous carbon fiber in an anhydrous molten salt comprising calcium chloride maintained at a temperature of 819.85°C (1093 K) with the amorphous carbon fiber is cathodically polarized at -2.6V for 2 hours to result in conversion of the amorphous carbon fiber to at least partially graphitized carbon fiber (Abstract; Page 11457, Last Paragraph; Page 11459, First Full Paragraph; Scheme 1; Figure 5). However, Jin fails to teach that the carbon fiber is a continuous fiber that is fed into and passed through the molten salt in a continuous graphitization process.
However, Luo also discusses the electrolytic treatment of carbon fiber and teaches that the treatment can occur continuously and at high speed by forming the carbon fiber as a continuous fiber wound on spool (first roller) and fed via rollers through the electrolytic treatment continuously (Paragraphs 0005 to 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Luo by forming the carbon fiber as a continuous fiber for feeding through the molten salt via winding and unwinding around rollers (spools) in order to allow for continuous and high speed electrolytic graphitization of the carbon fiber as taught by Luo. Luo further teaches that the carbon fiber is longer than 1 meter (i.e. is fed at a speed of 1 to 10 meters per minute) (Paragraph 0005 and 0013).
As to claim 2, the combination of Jin and Luo teaches the method of claim 1. Jin further teaches that the amorphous carbon can comprise relatively “hard” carbons that are relatively “resistant” to graphitization, i.e. non-graphitizable carbon (Page 11456).
As to claim 15, the combination of Jin and Luo teaches the method of claim 1. Jin further teaches that the graphitized carbon fiber exhibits an x-ray diffraction peak of 2 theta at 26° (Figure 1).
As to claim 16, the combination of Jin and Luo teaches the method of claim 1. Jin further teaches that the graphitized carbon fiber has a nanoflake architecture on its surface (Page 11458, Column 2, Paragraph 3).
As to claim 21, the combination of Jin and Luo teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Jin teaches a temperature of 819.85°C. However, Jin further teaches that the specific temperature influences the graphitization rate (Page 11547, Column 2, Paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the temperature of the melt in view of the rate of graphitization, for example balancing the cost of maintaining higher temperature in view of the desired rate of graphitization (MPEP 2144.05 II). Furthermore, 819.85°C can be considered substantially equivalent to 800°C.
As to claim 22, the combination of Jin and Luo teaches the method of claim 1. Jin teaches that the amorphous continuous carbon fiber is converted, at least during a portion of the process, to partially graphitized continuous carbon fiber, i.e. is partially graphitized before continuing to fully graphitized (Paragraph spanning page 11458 to 11459). Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to stop the method of Jin at any time period prior to full graphitization depending on the desired end product, for example, if the usage of the end product did not require full graphitization the process could then be beneficially sped up.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jin and Luo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 110565212 A to Yang et al. (Yang).
As to claim 17, the combination of Jin and Luo teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Jin teaches that the amorphous carbon can comprises carbon fibers (Abstract); however, Jin fails to teach the specific source or formation of these carbon fibers. However, Yang also discusses carbon fibers and teaches that a carbon fiber that should undergo graphitization comprises a PAN derived carbon fiber (Paragraph 0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the graphitization method of Jin to PAN derived carbon fibers as taught needed by Yang.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jin and Luo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0390374 A1 to Fournier et al. (Fournier).
As to claim 18, the combination of Jin and Luo teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Jin teaches that the amorphous carbon can comprises carbon fibers (Abstract); however, Jin fails to teach the specific source or formation of these carbon fibers. However, Fournier also discusses carbon fibers and teaches that a carbon fiber that should undergo graphitization comprises a lignin derived carbon fiber (Paragraph 0154). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the graphitization method of Jin to lignin derived carbon fibers as taught needed by Fournier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue, with a corresponding affidavit, that it would not have been obvious to modify Jin with the teachings of Luo, arguing that Jin teaches a non-faradic process in which the electrolyte facilitates structural rearrangement and Luo teaches a faradaic process in which ions in the electrolyte are deposited, and that therefore Jin cannot be modified by Luo as the modification to a faradaic deposition process would destroy the process of Jin. However, this is a misrepresentation of the Examiners rejection. The Examiner has not modified the process conditions or general chemistry of Jin. The Examiner instead has modified the method by which a cathodically biased carbon fiber can be placed in an electrolyte for the benefit of allowing continuous rather than batch reaction within the electrolyte. The Examiner maintains that continuous operation would be beneficial and applicable to the process of Jin even though the process occurring at the cathodically biased carbon fiber of Luo is a different process.
Applicant further argue that partial graphitization is not taught by the combination. It is important to note first that the limitation in claims 1-10, 13-18, 20 and 21 is merely “at least partially graphitized”, thus reading on fully graphitized. Claim 22 has newly incorporated this limitation; however, the Examiner has rejected this as well, as above. It is important to note that the claim language in claim 22 does not require that the final product is partially graphitized, just that at some point the carbon fiber is partially graphitized. Furthermore, it is important to note that applicants have described in great detail in the argument what is mean by partial graphitization, but that these features have not been incorporated into the claim, such as “deliberate retention of a substantial fraction of amorphous caron within the final product”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights