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 .
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.
Claim 30 is 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.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "each tensioning device" in claim 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-13, 16, 17, 19, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gooden et al. (AU 2017254933).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Gooden et al. discloses a reactor for pre-stabilizing a precursor for a carbon-based material (see page 8, lines 25-35; page 10, lines 13-19; Fig. 1A-1C), the reactor comprising:
a reaction chamber adapted to pre-stabilize the precursor in a substantially oxygen-free atmosphere as the precursor is passed through the reaction chamber under a predetermined tension (see page 10, lines 13-19; page 16, lines 9-20);
an inlet for allowing the precursor to enter the reaction chamber (see page 8, lines 25-35);
an outlet for allowing the precursor to exit the reaction chamber (see page 8, lines 25-35; and
a gas delivery system for delivering substantially oxygen-free gas to the reaction chamber (see page 12, lines 15-31), the gas delivery system comprising:
a gas seal assembly (60) for sealing the reaction chamber to provide the substantially oxygen-free atmosphere therein (see page 12, lines 4-9) and for limiting incidental gas flow out of the reactor through the inlet and the outlet (see page 12, lines 15-17); and
a forced gas flow assembly for providing a flow of heated substantially oxygen-free gas in the reaction chamber to heat the precursor in the substantially oxygen-free atmosphere (see page 12, line 33 to page 13, line 12).
Regarding claim 2, the reference Gooden et al. discloses the reactor, wherein the forced gas flow assembly comprises at least one return duct arranged to receive substantially oxygen-free gas from the reaction chamber and return substantially oxygen-free gas to the reaction chamber to recirculate substantially oxygen-free gas through the reaction chamber (see page 13, lines 14-34; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 3, as no structural distinction is seen between the reactor of Gooden et al. and the instantly claimed reactor, the reactor of Gooden et al. is considered capable of performing the function recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, as no structural distinction is seen between the reactor of Gooden et al. and the instantly claimed reactor, the reactor of Gooden et al. is considered capable of performing the function recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the reference Gooden et al. discloses the reactor, wherein the reaction chamber comprises two or more reaction zones (see page 13, line 30 to page 14, line 25; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 6, the reference Gooden et al. discloses the reactor, wherein the forced gas flow assembly is adapted to provide a flow of heated substantially oxygen-free gas from the center of the reaction chamber towards each end of the reaction chamber (see page 13, line 30 to page 14, line 25; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 7, the reference Gooden et al. discloses the reactor, wherein the forced gas flow assembly is adapted to provide a flow of heated substantially oxygen-free gas from each end of the reaction chamber towards the center of the reaction chamber (see page 15, lines 9-26; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 8, the reference Gooden et al. discloses that the reactor, comprising a heating system for externally heating one or more reaction zones of the reaction chamber (see page 11, lines 5-23; Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 9, the reference Gooden et al. discloses the reactor, wherein the heating system comprises one or more heating elements (40) for heating said one or more reaction zones (see page 11, lines 5-23; Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 10, the reference Gooden et al. discloses the reactor, wherein the one or more heating elements are positioned within a heating jacket, the heating jacket being adapted to contain a heat transfer medium for distributing the heat from the heating elements along said one or more reaction zones (see page 11, lines 5-23; Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 11, the reference Gooden et al. discloses the reactor, wherein the heating system comprises at least one return line arranged to receive heat transfer medium from the heating jacket and return heat transfer medium to the heating jacket to recirculate heat transfer medium through the heating jacket ( see page 11, lines 5-23; Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 12, the reference Gooden et al. discloses the reactor, wherein the gas seal assembly comprises: a gas curtain sub-assembly for providing a sealing gas curtain between the reaction chamber and each of the inlet and outlet; and an exhaust sub-assembly for extracting exhaust gases (see page 5, lines 17-32; page 18, lines 1-9 (Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 13, the reference Gooden et al. discloses the reactor, wherein the exhaust sub-assembly comprises a hazardous gas abatement system for decontaminating the exhaust gases (see page 13, lines 4-5; page 15, lines 29-31; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 16, the reference Gooden et al. discloses that the reactor comprises cooling section, between the reaction chamber and the outlet, for actively cooling the precursor before the precursor exits the reactor (see col. 22, lines 8-15).
Regarding claim 17, the reference Gooden et al. discloses that the reactor comprises two or more reaction chambers (see page 15, lines 16-24; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 19, the reference Gooden et al. discloses an apparatus for stabilizing a precursor for a carbon-based material (see page 7, lines 2-12), the apparatus comprising:
a reactor according to claim 1 for producing a pre-stabilized precursor (see page 8, lines 25-35; page 10, lines 13-19; page 12, line 15 to page 13, line 12; Fig. 1A-1C); and
an oxidation reactor downstream from the reactor, the oxidation reactor comprising at least one oxidation chamber adapted to stabilize the pre-stabilized precursor in an oxygen-containing atmosphere as the pre-stabilized precursor is passed through the oxidation chamber(s) see page 7, lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 24, as no structural distinction is seen between the apparatus of Gooden et al. and the instantly claimed reactor, the apparatus of Gooden et al. is considered capable of performing the function recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 26, the reference Gooden et al. discloses that the apparatus comprises tensioning devices located upstream and downstream of the reaction chamber, wherein the tensioning devices are adapted to pass the precursor through the reaction chamber under a predetermined tension (see page 16, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 27, the reference Gooden et al. discloses a system for stabilizing a precursor for a carbon-based material (see page 7, lines 2-12), the system comprising:
the reactor according to claim 1 for producing a pre-stabilized precursor (see page 8, lines 25-35; page 10, lines 13-19; page 12, line 15 to page 13, line 12; Fig. 1A-1C);
tensioning devices located upstream and downstream of the reaction chamber, wherein the tensioning devices are adapted to pass the precursor through the reaction chamber under a predetermined tension (see page 16, lines 15-20); and
an oxidation reactor downstream from the reactor, the oxidation reactor comprising at least one oxidation chamber adapted to stabilize the pre-stabilized precursor in an oxygen-containing atmosphere as the pre-stabilized precursor is passed through the oxidation chamber(s) (see page 7, lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 28, the reference Gooden et al. discloses a system for preparing a carbon-based material (see page 7, lines 2-12), the system comprising:
a reactor according to claim 1 for producing a pre-stabilized precursor (see page 8, lines 25-35; page 10, lines 13-19; page 12, line 15 to page 13, line 12; Fig. 1A-1C);
tensioning devices located upstream and downstream of the reaction chamber, wherein the tensioning devices are adapted to pass the precursor through the reaction chamber under a predetermined tension (see page 16, lines 15-20); and
an oxidation reactor downstream from the reactor, the oxidation reactor comprising at least one oxidation chamber adapted to stabilize the pre-stabilized precursor in an oxygen-containing atmosphere as the pre-stabilized precursor is passed through the oxidation chamber(s) (see page 7, lines 2-12); and
a carbonization unit for carbonizing the stabilized precursor to form the carbon- based material (see page 7, lines 2-12).
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.
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.
Claim 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooden et al..
Regarding claim 21, the claim depends from claim 19 such that the reasoning applied to claim 19 above is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Gooden et al. is, however, silent with respect to the location of the reactor relative to the oxidation reactor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, seeking to reduce a foot print of the apparatus, to have the reactor located beneath the oxidation reactor, since it has been held that rearrangement of parts is generally recognizes as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 25, the claim depends from claim 19 such that the reasoning applied to claim 19 above is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Gooden et al. is, however, silent with respect to the relative size of the apparatus. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the apparatus in size sufficient to fit within a standard 40-foot shipping container, since it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooden et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Stockhausen (US 2004/0214124).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the reference Gooden et al. is silent with respect to the hazardous gas abatement system including: a burner for combusting the exhaust gases so as to destroy reaction by-products and produce hot combustion gasses, as required by claim 14; and a heat exchanger for transferring heat from the hot combustion gasses to the substantially oxygen-free gas supplied to the gas delivery system by a supply line, as required by claim 15. The reference Gooden et al. is silent The reference Stockhausen teaches a hazardous gas abatement system for decontaminating exhaust gases from a reactor for pre-stabilizing a precursor for a carbon-based material (see paras. [0007]-[0008; [0025]). The reference Stockhausen further teaches that the hazardous gas abatement system includes a burner for combusting the exhaust gases so as to destroy reaction by-products and produce hot combustion gasses and a heat exchanger for transferring heat from the hot combustion gasses to a gas steam which is to be supplied into the reactor (see para. 0025]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gooden et al. and Stockhausen, and modified the hazardous gas abatement system of Gooden et al. to include a burner for combusting the exhaust gases so as to destroy reaction by-products and produce hot combustion gasses as well as a heat exchanger for transferring heat from the hot combustion gasses to a substantially oxygen-free gas supplied to the gas delivery system as suggested by Stockhausen, and claimed by applicant, since Stockhausen teaches that such a modification advantageously allows for recovery the heat energy that is released during combustion of the exhaust gases to heat up a gas steam which to be supplied into the reactor (see para. [0025]).
Claims 22-23 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooden et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Atkiss et al. (US 2020/0248339).
Regarding claim 22, the reference Gooden et al. is silent with respect to the oxidation reactor comprising two or more oxidation chambers. The reference Atkiss et al. teaches an oxidation reactor comprising two or more oxidation chambers arrange downstream of a reactor for pre-stabilizing a precursor for a carbon-based material (see paras. [0411]-[00412]; [0433]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gooden et al. and Atkiss et al., and modified the oxidation reactor of Gooden et al. to include two or more oxidation chambers as taught by Atkiss et al. to oxidize the pre-stabilized precursor at the same temperature or different temperatures in the two or more oxidation chambers as taught by Atkiss et al. (see paras. [0411]-[00412]; [0433]).
Regarding claim 23, the references Gooden et al. and Atkiss et al. disclose the apparatus, wherein the oxidation reactor comprises four or more oxidation chambers (see Atkiss et al.: para. [0059]; [00625]; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 29, the references Gooden et al. and Atkiss et al. disclose the apparatus can include tensioning devices located upstream and downstream of the or each oxidation chamber, wherein the tensioning devices are adapted to pass the pre-stabilized precursor through the or each oxidation chamber under a predetermined tension (see Atkiss et al.: para. [0423]).
Regarding claim 30, the references Gooden et al. and Atkiss et al. disclose the apparatus can include tensioning devices located upstream and downstream of the or each oxidation chamber, wherein the tensioning devices are adapted to pass the pre-stabilized precursor through the or each oxidation chamber under a predetermined tension (see Atkiss et al.: para. [0423]). The reference Atkiss et al. further teaches wherein each tensioning device comprises a load cell for sensing the amount of tension being applied (see para. [0426]).
Regarding claim 31, the references Gooden et al. and Atkiss et al. disclose the apparatus can comprise reflectance Fourier-transform infra-red (FT-IR) spectrometer disposed downstream of the outlet of the reactor and upstream of the oxidation reactor, the FT-IR spectrometer being for monitoring the percentage of cyclized nitrile groups in the pre-stabilized precursor output from the reactor (see Atkiss et al. para. [0429]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 18, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the features: wherein: the reaction chamber is vertically-orientated; the reactor has a lower end and an upper end; the inlet and the outlet are located at the lower end of the reactor; and the reactor further comprises a roller for passing the precursor through the reaction chamber from the inlet to the outlet, wherein the roller is located at the upper end of the reactor and is for being disposed in the substantially oxygen-free atmosphere, as required in claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the features: wherein the oxidation reactor further comprises: an oxidation gas delivery system for delivering oxygen-containing gas to the or each oxidation chamber, the oxidation gas delivery system comprising: a gas seal assembly for limiting incidental gas flow out of the oxidation reactor through the inlet(s) and the outlet(s); and a forced gas flow assembly for providing a flow of heated oxygen-containing gas in the or each oxidation chamber to heat the pre-stabilized precursor in the oxygen-containing atmosphere, as required in claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights