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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (20170282153) in view of Kobayashi et al (20180287153).
Bae, paragraph 45 of the PGPUB, teaches the activated carbon manufacturing method includes: preparing activated carbon precursors (S10), carbonizing the activated carbon precursors by using a heat treatment (S20), equalizing the activated carbon precursors carbonized in the carbonizing by grinding them (S30), activating the activated carbon precursors by inserting an oxidizing agent and distilled water into the equalized activated carbon precursors and performing a heat treatment thereon (S40), and introducing metal oxide particles into the activated carbon precursor surface by mixing the activated precursors, a metal salt, and a reducing agent in a solvent to perform reaction thereon (S50).
Bae, paragraph 49 of the PGPUB, teaches the precursors can be coffee grounds.
Bae, paragraph 52 of the PGPUB, teaches a particle size of the ball used for the ball mill may be in a range of 1 mm to 20 mm.
Bae, paragraph 58 of the PGPUB, teaches the activated carbon may further include selecting the equalized activated carbon precursors by using a sieve having a size.
Bae, paragraph 73 of the PGPUB, teaches the activated carbon manufacturing method may further include performing a heat treatment thereon in the air in a temperature that is in a range of 250° C. to 350° C., after the introducing of the metal oxide particles.
It 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 that the heat treatment can take place in any conventional vessel such as a tubal furnace (oven) as this furnace is already in use as part of the process.
Bae, paragraph 82 of the PGPUB, teaches sample was obtained by inserting vegetable-based activated carbon precursors (starch) inserted into a tubal furnace.
Carbonizing the activated carbon precursors by using a heat treatment as taught by Bae reads on the performing a main treatment process of carbonizing as claimed in claim 1.
Equalizing the activated carbon precursors carbonized in the carbonizing by using a sieve as taught by Bae reads on the sieving step as claimed in claim 1.
Activating the activated carbon precursors by inserting an oxidizing agent as taught by Bae reads on activating as claimed in claim 1.
Ball milling with a ball mill as taught by Bae reads on grinding with a grinder as claimed in claim 1.
Performing a heat treatment as taught by Bae reads on drying as claimed in claim 1.
It 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 that the grinding, sieving and activating can happen in any order to obtain the same coffee activate carbon product.
Although Bae teaches equalized activated carbon precursors by using a sieve, Bae does not teach equalizing to obtain an average particle diameter (Dv50) of greater than 0 microns to 3 microns or less.
Kobayashi teaches a carbonaceous material.
Kobayashi, paragraph 17 of the PGPUB, teaches the average particle diameter of the carbonaceous material of the present invention (Dv50) is 1 to 50 μm. The lower limit of the average particle diameter is preferably 1 μm or more. If the average particle diameter is less than 1 μm, the fine powder is increased, whereby the specific surface area increases. Accordingly, the reactivity with the electrolyte becomes high, irreversible capacity which does not discharge even when charged increases, and the proportion of the capacity of the positive electrode which is wasted increases, which is not preferable. The upper limit of the average particle diameter is preferably 40 μm or less. If the average particle diameter exceeds 50 μm, the dispersion free path of the sodium in the particles increases, whereby rapid charging and discharging becomes difficult. Further, in order to improve the input and output characteristics, a large electrode surface area is important, and therefore, when producing the electrode, it is essential to make the coating thickness of the active substance to the current collector thin. To make the coating thickness think, it is necessary to reduce the particle diameter of the active substance. From such a viewpoint, the upper limit of the average particle diameter is preferably 50 μm or less.
It 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 to obtain a Dv50 of 1-50 microns as taught by Kobayashi of the activated carbon as taught by Bae to use the activated carbon as an electrode material.
Regarding claims 4-5, Bae, paragraph 51 of the PGPUB, teaches a temperature of the heat treatment for the carbonizing is 700°C-1000°C.
Regarding claim 6, Bae, example 1, teaches carbonizing in nitrogen gas.
Regarding claim 7, Bae, paragraph 63 of the PGPUB, teaches activating may be performed at a temperature of 700°C -1000°C.
Regarding claim 8, Bae, paragraph 47 of the PGPUB, teaches the activated carbon precursors are activated by simultaneously using the oxidizing agent and the distilled water (oxidizing agent-steam activation) to increase the activity of steam molecules.
Regarding claim 9, Bae, paragraph 86 of the PGPUB, teaches Next, pH of the solution was adjusted in a range of 10 to 12 by using a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution, and the solution was additionally agitated for 1 hr. Then, 3 ml of formaldehyde (HCHO) was dripped, and the solution was agitated at 100° C. for 2 hr. Thereafter, it was cooled to room temperature, and was cleaned/dried by using ethanol 5 times.
This step as taught by Bae reads on a standing and stabilizing step as claimed in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Equalizing the activated carbon precursors carbonized in the carbonizing by using a sieve as taught by Bae reads on the second sieving process as claimed in claim 10.
Alternatively, it 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 to incorporate a sieving step with a specific mm opening for a dry material at any point to obtain uniform particle sizes.
Ball milling with a ball mill as taught by Bae reads on the grinding process as claimed in claim 10.
Performing a heat treatment as taught by Bae reads on a second drying process as claimed in claim 10.
Alternatively, it 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 to incorporate additional drying steps to ensure the product has no residual moisture.
Regarding claim 11, it 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 to incorporate a sieving step with a specific mm opening for a dry material at any point to obtain uniform particle sizes.
Regarding claim 12, it 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 to incorporate additional drying steps to ensure the product has no residual moisture.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (20170282153) in view of Kobayashi et al (20180287153) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kim et al (WO2022211263, English translation).
Although the references teaches coffee grounds, the references do not teach a first drying process and a first sieving process.
Kim, paragraph 12 of the English translation, teaches a method for manufacturing a molded article using coffee grounds, the method being characterized by comprising: a drying step of drying coffee grounds; a filtering step of sieving the coffee grounds dried through the drying step.
Kim, paragraph 31 of the English translation, teaches the drying step (S101) is a step of drying coffee grounds, and is performed by removing foreign substances from coffee grounds collected in a coffee shop, a coffee factory, and the like, and then drying the coffee grounds at a temperature of 60 to 80°C for 7 to 9 hours.
Kim, paragraph 35 of the English translation, teaches the sieving step (S103) is a step of collecting the dried coffee grounds through the drying step (S101), and the coffee grounds dried through the drying step (S101) are collected using a tray having a diameter of 1.5 to 2 mm (15000-2000mm), and the spent coffee grounds using the tray as described above exhibit a uniform particle size.
Kim, paragraph 37 of the English translation, teaches when the hole size of the tray is less than 1.5 mm, the cloud of coffee grounds cannot be properly performed, and when the hole size of the tray exceeds 2 millimeters, the agglomerated part of the coffee grounds cannot be properly released.
It 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 to incorporate a drying and sieving to 1500-2000 microns of coffee grounds before a carbonizing step to ensure the agglomerated part of the coffee grounds are properly released and to obtain a uniform particle size.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Bae is directed is directed to a method for producing activated carbon as an adsorbent for filters, particularly activated carbon having improved selective adsorption performance for carbon dioxide; and Kobayashi is directed to a carbonaceous material for use as a negative electrode material in sodium-ion secondary batteries. Accordingly, Bae and Kobayashi differ from Applicants' claimed invention not only in their respective technical fields, but also in the technical problems they each address.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
Bae, paragraph 58 of the PGPUB, teaches as such, it is possible to manufacture activated carbon capable of equalizing particle sizes, increasing a specific surface area, and removing impurities. The particle size uniformity of the activated carbon is an important factor when the activated carbon is manufactured to apply it to an actual product. For example, when being used for a supercapacitor electrode, or the like, the activated carbon is modified into a pellet or granular shape by mixing it with a binder.
Kobayashi is directed to a carbonaceous material for use as a negative electrode material.
Therefore, both Bae and Kobayashi relate to electrodes.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicant argues in Bae, activated carbon particles having a comparatively large particle size of 100-250 µm are intentionally selected to avoid pressure drop in filtration systems. In contrast, Kobayashi controls the average particle size within a range of 1- 50 µm for the purpose of optimizing battery performance and expressly teaches that an average particle size exceeding 50 µm adversely affects rapid charge-discharge performance. See Kobayashi, " [0017]. Further, Kobayashi explains that an average particle size of less than 1 µm is undesirable because the increased amount of fine particles increases the specific surface area, thereby increasing the reactivity with the electrolyte and resulting in an increase in irreversible capacity. See Kobayashi, 1 [0017]. Thus, Kobayashi makes it clear that reducing the particle size as much as possible is not always desirable and, in fact, teaches away from reducing the particle size too far.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
Bae, paragraph 52 of the PGPUB, teaches the equalizing of the activated carbon precursors carbonized in the carbonizing by grinding them may be performed by using the ball mill,
Bae, paragraph 58 of the PGPUB, teaches as such, it is possible to manufacture activated carbon capable of equalizing particle sizes, increasing a specific surface area, and removing impurities. The particle size uniformity of the activated carbon is an important factor when the activated carbon is manufactured to apply it to an actual product.
Examiner interprets broadly the equalizing step can use any sieve to achieve any specific particle size for its intended use.
Therefore, Bae teaches broadly any particle size.
Applicant argues that Applicants' claimed invention demonstrates that controlling the average particle size to 3 µm or less suppresses an increase in pack pressure during melt spinning, prevents yarn breakage, and-because of the increased specific surface area-additionally imparts deodorizing and odor-removal properties that conventional dope-dyed yarns do not possess. As demonstrated in the Examples, the use of coffee-derived activated carbon having an average particle size of 3 µm or less resulted in suppressed pack pressure, prevention of yarn breakage, and excellent black coloration. See Table 2 and FIG. 6 of Applicants' application, reproduced below. These advantages are neither taught nor suggested by Bae or Kobayashi and would not have been reasonably expected from the teachings of those references, whether considered alone or in combination.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
The data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims.
The data only shows a method comprising coffee particle having a specific diameter was introduced to a thermal decomposition furnace and carbonized for a specific time (1 hour) at a specific temperature (750oC) and activated with a specific compound (steam) and performing grinding with a specific method (blade mill and vibrating screen device) to obtain a specific average particle diameter (D2.6 microns)
While
The claims a method comprising coffee particle having ANY diameter introduced to a thermal decomposition furnace and carbonized for ANY amount of time at ANY temperature and activated with ANY compound and performing grinding with ANY method to obtain a broad particle size of greater than 0-3 microns.
Additionally, the data does not show using the D50 at the lower end value and at the upper end value (i.e., greater than 0 microns; 3 microns).
As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of D50.
The data is commensurate in scope with the closet prior art of Bae.
Applicant argues even if a person of ordinary skill in the art were to make such a combination, the Office has failed to provide sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the combined teachings so as to arrive at Applicants' claimed average particle size of 3 µm or less for melt-spinning applications. Bae discloses particle sizes far above Applicants' claimed range and Kobayashi expressly teaches that it is not desirable to reduce the particle size too far. Therefore, the cited references, whether considered individually or in combination, neither teach nor suggest Applicants' claimed invention, and Applicants' claimed invention would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants' claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
As stated above, Bae, paragraph 52 of the PGPUB, teaches the equalizing of the activated carbon precursors carbonized in the carbonizing by grinding them may be performed by using the ball mill,
Bae, paragraph 58 of the PGPUB, teaches as such, it is possible to manufacture activated carbon capable of equalizing particle sizes, increasing a specific surface area, and removing impurities. The particle size uniformity of the activated carbon is an important factor when the activated carbon is manufactured to apply it to an actual product.
Examiner interprets broadly the equalizing step can use any sieve to achieve any specific particle size for its intended use.
Therefore, as stated above, it 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 to obtain a Dv50 of 1-50 microns as taught by Kobayashi of the activated carbon as taught by Bae to use the activated carbon as an electrode material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190241437 teaches a method to make activated carbon.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 9/15/26
Prosecution Insights