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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 11 and 12, the disclosure supports embodiments of a continuous fiber fed and passed through the molten salt and a fiber provided within a mesh, but does not provide support for these embodiments in combination.
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 11 and 12 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.
As to claims 11 and 12, it is unclear as to how a fiber can be both fed and passed through a molten salt and held in a mesh.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 27 January 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 102 in the Office Action of 29 September 2025 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 and 20 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).
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 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Luo cannot render obvious the modification of the process of Jin to a continuous process because the electrolytic treatment of the carbon fiber is a different type of electrolytic treatment with different operating conditions. However, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner maintains that Jin teaches an electrolytic carbon fiber graphitization process and that Luo teaches that carbon fibers can be continuously electrolytically treated, even though this treatment is a different electrolytic process, there are clear advantages to continuous treatment and one of ordinary skill in the art would easily be able to modify materials of the components such as the spools to operate in the environment of Jin to achieve the desirable outcome of continuous processing rather than batch processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0190777 A1 to Fray et al. (Fray) – Discussing relevant features for claims 11 and 12 as an alternative embodiment as discussed in the Office Action of 29 September 2025.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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