DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pre-grant publication corresponding to the application, US 2023/0278874. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
This office action is in response to the papers as filed 4/28/2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on:
4/28/2023
10/31/2023
6/17/2025
10/30/2025
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
I. Claim 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, and 20 – or as stated below – is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 20 of copending Application No. 17/931,720 (reference application).
Claims in 18/309,339
Claims in 17/931,720
1
corresponds to
1
2
corresponds to
2
3
corresponds to
4
6
corresponds to
6
7
corresponds to
7
8
corresponds to
8
9
corresponds to
9
10
corresponds to
10
12
corresponds to
16
19
corresponds to
18
20
corresponds to
20
This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
I. Claim(s) 8, 10, and 12-20 – or as stated below – is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8/7/1 is reproduced below:
8/7/1. A method of carbonizing an upgraded coal, the method comprising:
heating the upgraded coal in an inert environment, to form a carbonized upgraded coal,
further comprising forming the upgraded coal, comprising [1] cleaning coal to form a cleaned coal residue; and
at least one of
reacting the cleaned coal residue with an oxidizable inorganic metallic agent, and
reacting the cleaned coal residue with a reducing agent,
to form the upgraded coal,
wherein the method comprises:
[2] cleaning coal having a largest dimension of 25 mm or less using a strong mineral acid at a temperature of 30° C to 100° C to form a cleaned coal residue; and
at least one of
reacting the cleaned coal residue at 100° C. to 500° C. under an inert gas with an oxidizable inorganic metallic agent comprising iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO4·7H2O), iron (II) chloride tetrahydrate (FeCl·4H2O), or a combination thereof, and
reacting the cleaned coal residue at 0° C. to 50° C. in an organic solvent with a reducing agent comprising lithium aluminum hydride (LAH), sodium borohydride (NAH), or a combination thereof,
to form the upgraded coal;
wherein
the upgraded coal has a lower ash content, as compared to the coal used to form the upgraded coal, and
the upgraded coal has at least one of a lower oxygen concentration and a higher carbon concentration, as compared to the naturally-sourced coal used to form the upgraded coal.
(emphasis and bracketed numbers added). Notwithstanding any similar claim allowed elsewhere in the family, this claim is rejected as prolix. MPEP 2173.05(m). Furthermore, “the cleaned coal residue” lacks antecedent basis as it unclear which cleaned coal residue from which cleaning step (two are being claimed) is being referenced. Is one cleaning step supposed to limit another? Or is does this claim require two separate cleaning steps carried out on two populations of coal (i.e. one without a size limitation and another with a size limitation).
Claim 10/1 reads as follows:
10/1. A method of carbonizing an upgraded coal, the method comprising:
heating the upgraded coal in an inert environment, to form a carbonized upgraded coal,
wherein the method is a method of forming graphite, the method further comprising:
graphitizing the carbonized upgraded coal, to form the graphite.
(Claim 10/1) (emphasis added). “[T]he method is a method of forming graphite” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 refers to carbonizing, not graphitization. Carbonizing and graphitizing are two different things. ““The method”” cannot be both at the same time. Carbonizing happens first, then graphitizing. This is well known to one of skill in the art, but to the extent evidence is necessary, the following is provided: Fitzer, et al., Recommended Terminology for the Description of Carbon as a Solid, Pure & Appl. Chem. 1995; 67(3): 473-506 (hereinafter “Fitzer at __”). Note the definitions at (Fitzer at 484 – carbonization) and (Fitzer at 493 graphitization). See also Dahn, et al., Mechanism for Lithium Insertion in Carbonaceous Materials, Science 1995; 270: 590-593 (hereinafter “Dahn at __”). Note the discussion of heating and the transformation to graphite at (Dahn at 590, col. 2-3).
““The method”” however can contain different steps. Deleting the “a method of carbonizing” in the preamble of Claim 1, coupled with other editorial changes, would obviate the rejection. For example, writing the claims this way:
1. (Currently Amended) A method
…
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1,
would obviate the rejection. This language separates and distinguishes the steps. The remaining claims should be reviewed to provide agreement with Claims 1 and 10 as necessary (antecedent basis, etc.).
Claim 12 recites “croissant-like,” and “ribbon-like.” The addition of the suffix “-like,” understood to be an approximation, renders the terms indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(b) III. The “croissant graphite” language has developed somewhat vis-à-vis the parent application 17/931,720. The Specification states:
The new graphite structure revealed by FESEM analysis of the graphitized materials shows oval or spherical morphologies and texture that looks like croissant, hence, the name croissant graphite.
(S. 22: [0213]) (emphasis added).
Croissant graphite microstructures have roughly wavy surface textures with dot-like speckles (FIG. 30A). These microstructures have been named croissant graphite because of the resemblance of the external morphology (shape and texture) to the surface morphology of croissant food items.
(S. 22: [0218]) (emphasis added).
Note that one passage provides specific examples of morphologies (oval, spherical) and refers to “a texture that looks like croissant.” (S. 22: [0213]). The second passage refers to the resemblance of the shape and texture to croissant food items.
A “croissant” is “a flaky rich crescent-shaped roll.” Definition of “croissant,” accessed online at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/croissant on 1/8/2026 (emphasis added). . The “Joy of Cooking” provides some history, stating “[t]he Hungarian government rewarded the bakers with a mandate to create a pastry in the shape of the crescent symbol on the Turkish flag. Soon all of Europe was nibbling on the symbol of Turkish defeat.” Rombauer, et al., Joy of Cooking Rev. Ed., p. 913, Scribner 1997 (emphasis added). While the Examiner will stipulate that croissants can be made in a variety of shapes, the bulk of the evidence supports a “crescent” shape. A crescent is not an oval or a sphere.
It is unclear what is required of the “croissant” language: It is unclear if any shape is required, and if so, it is unclear whether the shape has to be a crescent, as most people might associate with a croissant? Alternatively, or additionally, it is unclear if any shape is required at all? Pastry dough can be shaped in any manner prior to baking. Furthermore, it is unclear what a texture that “looks like” croissant encompasses. Greasy is a texture, and one that might be associated with all of the butter used in making a croissant. See The Science Behind the Perfect Croissant: Why Technique Matters, accessed online at https://www.cordonbleu.edu/malaysia/blog-the-science-behind-the-perfect-croissant-why-technique-matters/en on 1/9/2026 (“But if the butter melts too early, it leaks out and creates greasy, dense pastries.”). Is this what is meant by “croissant graphite?” This language is unclear. The “croissant” issues apply everywhere it is found: Claim 14, Claim 15, Claim 17, Claim 18,
Dependent claims not specifically addressed import the issues of the claims from which they depend.
Discussion – Claim Construction
The term “upgraded” in Claim 1 and elsewhere was discussed in the parent applications (17/445,870; 17/931,720). It is broad language. Rozelle, et al., Coal Upgrading Technologies and the Extraction of Useful Materials from Coal Mine Products: History and Opportunities, United States Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy DOI: 10.2172/1457712, pp. 1-56 (March 2018) (hereinafter “Rozelle at _”) is made of record. Rozelle states “coal upgrading is defined as processing of run of mine (ROM) coal that takes place prior to its shipment to the customer.” (Rozelle at 7). The language is so construed. To the extent Rozelle is needed to support any rejection below, it is incorporated therein mutatis mutandis. It was omitted from rejection headings for brevity’s sake.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 12 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu, et al., Insight into the change in carbon structure and thermodynamics during anthracite transformation into graphite, International Jouranl of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials 2020; 27(2): 162-171 (February 2020, hereinafter “Qiu at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim recites in the preamble “[a] method of carbonizing an upgraded coal.” Qui teaches anthracite “provided by Taixi Coal Preparation Plant.” (Qiu at 163 - 2.1 Materials). “Upgraded” is construed broadly, per the discussion above. Whatever happens at the Taixi Coal Preparation Plant is interpreted as addressing the “upgraded” language.
Claim 1 further requires “heating the upgraded coal in an inert environment, to form a carbonized upgraded coal.” The upgraded coal is heated in an argon atmosphere. (Qiu at 163 – 2.2 Graphitization process). Notwithstanding the issues noted above, the heating, heating rates, and times in Qui would result in carbonization, even if Qui proceeds to graphitization. Note also the claimed times and temperatures below. See rejection of Claims 2-3. As the claimed times and temperatures are taught, it is expected that carbonization occurs. This is the rationale to show inherency.
As to Claim 2, a temperature of 1773 K (~1500 °C) is taught. (Qiu at 165, col. 2). A time of 3 hours is taught. Id.
As to Claim 3, the anthracite bricks are interpreted as an upgraded particulate coal. (Qiu at 163 – 2.2. Graphitization process).
As to Claim 6, fixed carbon of ~98% is taught. (Qiu at 164 – Tables 3-4).
As to Claim 9, for purposes of the rejection, and notwithstanding any statements made elsewhere, “carbonized” is interpreted to read on graphitized. A “carbonized upgraded coal” is taught. (Qiu at 163 – 2.2 Graphitization process).
As to Claim 10, graphitization is taught. (Qiu at 163 – 2.2 Graphitization process).
As to Claim 12, for purposes of this rejection, Figure 1 of Qiu is interpreted as “like” a croissant in texture and shape. Like is broad language, and is so interpreted. The carbon layers with the “random layer structure” are interpreted as spriral-wound or ribbon-like structures. Again, “like” is broad language. (Qiu at 170 – 4. Conclusions).
II. Claim(s) 16 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, et al., Insight into the change in carbon structure and thermodynamics during anthracite transformation into graphite, International Jouranl of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials 2020; 27(2): 162-171 (February 2020, hereinafter “Qiu at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 16, Qiu reports 95.2% graphitization. (Qiu at 164 – Table 2). This is 0.2% more than claimed. However, Table 4 clearly teaches the graphitization rate is a function of time – which makes sense. Id. Stated differently, it is a result-effective variable, optimization of which does not impart patentability. MPEP 2144.05.
III. Claim(s) 4 and 11 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, et al., Insight into the change in carbon structure and thermodynamics during anthracite transformation into graphite, International Jouranl of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials 2020; 27(2): 162-171 (February 2020, hereinafter “Qiu at __”) in view of:
Leinhard V., et al., A Heat Transfer Textbook, 6th Edition, Phlogiston Press, p. 528 (2024) (hereinafter “Heat Transfer at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 4, Qiu states “the furnace was naturally cooled to room temperature to obtain the coal based graphite products.” (Qiu at 163 – 2.2 Graphitization process). Room temperature reads on the claimed temperature range. Qiu doesn’t explicitly state the time. Given the small sample size graphitized, it is highly likely it would cool off in the duration claimed. Regardless, the skilled artisan could select a cooling technique to achieve the cooling over the claimed time period. Official notice is taken of heat transfer and the body of work that the skilled artisan would have exposure to (e.g. a college heat transfer course). The Heat Transfer text is offered as scientific truisms, and as such, need not antedate the filing date. MPEP 2124. Older heat transfer books exist; this text was readily accessible. The entire file was too large to upload, but this is publicly accessible online.1 Implementing any and all methods of cooling – for example a fan / forced air convection – is an obvious expedient, reflecting application of known techniques to achieve predictable results. See e.g. (Heat Transfer at 528: “…the ultimate heat disposal can be as simple as a small fan blowing air…”). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claim 11, 3 hours and 3000 C are taught. (Qiu at 165, col. 1-2). Qiu states “the furnace was naturally cooled to room temperature to obtain the coal based graphite products.” (Qiu at 163 – 2.2 Graphitization process). Room temperature reads on the claimed temperature range. Qiu doesn’t explicitly state the time. Given the small sample size graphitized, it is highly likely it would cool off in the duration claimed. Regardless, the skilled artisan could select a cooling technique to achieve the cooling over the claimed time period. Official notice is taken of heat transfer and the body of work that the skilled artisan would have exposure to (e.g. a college heat transfer course). Heat Transfer is offered as evidence. (Heat Transfer, entire book). The Heat Transfer text is offered as scientific truisms, and as such, need not antedate the filing date. MPEP 2124. Older heat transfer books exist; this text was readily accessible. Implementing any and all methods of cooling – for example a fan / forced air convection – is an obvious expedient, reflecting application of known techniques to achieve predictable results. See e.g. (Heat Transfer at 528: “…the ultimate heat disposal can be as simple as a small fan blowing air…”). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
IV. Claim(s) 5 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, et al., Insight into the change in carbon structure and thermodynamics during anthracite transformation into graphite, International Jouranl of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials 2020; 27(2): 162-171 (February 2020, hereinafter “Qiu at __”) in view of:
(i) US 2018/0155201 to Zhang.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 5, Qiu does not teach the particulars of the coal. Zhang however teaches
[0020] Preferably, the fixed carbon content of the coal is 40 to 70%, the volatile content is 20 to 50%, the moisture content is 0 to 30%, the ash content 0 to 10%; coal element analysis requires carbon content of 50 to 80%, hydrogen content of 0 to 10%, oxygen content of 0 to 30%; the ash in the coal contains one or more of CaO, MgO, K2O, Na2O; the ash in the coal also contains one or more of SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, TiO2, MnO2, P2O5.
(Zhang 2: [0020]). Use of a known coal is an obvious expedient, and reflects application of a known material (the coal of Zhang) to a known process (that of Qiu) to achieve predictable results (carbonized/graphitized coal). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
V. Claim(s) 7 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, et al., Insight into the change in carbon structure and thermodynamics during anthracite transformation into graphite, International Jouranl of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials 2020; 27(2): 162-171 (February 2020, hereinafter “Qiu at __”) in view of:
(i) Rozelle, et al., Coal Upgrading Technologies and the Extraction of Useful Materials from Coal Mine Products: History and Opportunities, United States Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy DOI: 10.2172/1457712, pp. 1-56 (March 2018), and
(ii) Li, et al., An extremely rapid, convenient and mild coal desulfurization new process: Sodium borohydride reduction, Fuel Processing Technology 2010; 91: 1162-1167 (hereinafter “Li at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 7, cleaning is generic and is construed broadly. Cleaning coal is old and known. Official notice is taken. Rozelle is relied upon as evidence. See (Rozelle at 11 et seq.) (note history of cleaning coal dating back to at least the 1800s). Use of known techniques to achieve predictable results does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR. As to the “at least one of” limitations, these are construed as alternatives. Li teaches reacting coal with sodium borohydride. (Li at 1163, col. 2 – 2. Materials and methods). One of skill in the art would be taught, suggested and/or motivated to react with sodium borohydride to remove sulfur, with Li noting that “[b]y applying NaBH4 reduction, the time and cost required to remove sulfur form coal were pronouncedly reduced.” (Li at 1166, col. 1). Alternatively or additionally, the combination reflects application of known techniques (reaction with NaBH4, per Li) to achieve predictable results (sulfur removal). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
VI. Claim(s) 9 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Forrest, et al., Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to the Carbonization of Coals and Coal Blends, Coal and Coal Products: Analytical Characterization Techniques Chapter 1, pp 1-25 (1982).
With respect to Claim 9, this claim recites “[a] carbonized upgraded coal formed by the method of claim 1.” This is a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, it suggests a carbonized composition. Forrest teaches carbonized coal. (Forrest at 2 – The Carbonization Process: “As coal is heated it undergoes depolymerization and decomposition resulting in the evolution of gas and condensible vapours and leaves behind a solid residue of high carbon content (3).”).
VII. Claim(s) 19-20 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi, et al., Coal-derived synthetic graphite with high specific capacity and excellent cyclic stability as anode material for lithium-ion batteries, Fuel 2021; 292: 120250, pp. 1-11 (hereinafter “Shi at __”).
With respect to Claim 19, this claim requires “[a] graphite formed from the method of claim 10.” This is a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, the process suggests graphite. Shi teaches graphite. See e.g. (Shi at 2 – 2.1 Synthesis of graphite).
With respect to Claim 20, this claim recites in the preamble “[a]n electrochemical cell.” To the extent this is limiting (no such concession is made), Shi teaches lithium ion batteries. (Shi Abstract; passim).
Claim 20 further requires “a cathode.” A cathode is taught. (Shi Abstract; passim).
Claim 21 further requires “an anode comprising the graphite of claim 19.” As discussed above, Claim 19 is a product-by-process claim and is so construed. An anode comprising graphite is taught. (Shi Abstract; passim).
VIII. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 10, 13, 16, 9, 19, and 20 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xing, et al., Preparation of synthetic graphite from bituminous coal as anode materials for high performance lithium-ion batteries, Fuel Processing Technology 2018; 172: 162-171 (hereinafter “Xing at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim recites in the preamble “[a] method of carbonizing an upgraded coal.” Xing teaches coal that was ground, interpreted as upgrading. (Xing at 163, col. 1 – 2.1 Materials).
Claim 1 further requires “heating the upgraded coal in an inert environment, to form a carbonized upgraded coal.” Heating under nitrogen (an inert) to carbonize, is taught. (Xing at 163 – 2.2. Carbonization and graphitization of bituminous coal).
As to Claim 2, a temperature of 1000 C for 4 hours is taught. Id.
As to Claim 3, upgraded crushed/ground coal is taught. (Xing at 163, col. 1 – 2.1 Materials).
As to Claim 10, graphitization is taught. (Xing at 163 – 2.2. Carbonization and graphitization of bituminous coal).
As to Claim 13, nanochannels are taught. (Xing at 165, col. 2: “nanopores and nanochannels around the layered carbon sheets”).
As to Claim 16, the degree of graphitization is taught. (Xing at 164, col. 2 – Table 2).
With respect to Claim 9, this claim recites “[a] carbonized upgraded coal formed by the method of claim 1.” This is a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, it suggests a carbonized composition. Xing teaches carbonized coal. (Xing at 163 – 2.2. Carbonization and graphitization of bituminous coal: “The bituminous coal powder was placed in a corundum crucible and carbonized at 1000 °C…”).
With respect to Claim 19, this claim requires “[a] graphite formed from the method of claim 10.” This is a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, the process suggests graphite. Xing teaches graphite. (Xing at 163 – 2.2. Carbonization and graphitization of bituminous coal: “Such prepared synthetic graphite samples…”
With respect to Claim 20, this claim recites in the preamble “[a]n electrochemical cell.” To the extent this is limiting, an electrochemical cell is taught. (Xing at 163, col. 2 – 164, col. 1: “The electrochemical measurements were carried out using a two electrode CR2016 coin-type cell.”
Claim 20 further requires “a cathode.” The non-working electrode is interpreted as the cathode. (Xing at 163, col. 2 – 2.4 Electrochemical measurements, et seq.).
Claim 20 further requires “an anode comprising the graphite of claim 19.” As discussed above, Claim 19 is a product-by-process claim, and is so construed. The working electrode is interpreted as the anode. (Xing at 164, col. 1: “The working electrode was fabricated by mixing the synthetic graphite materials, carbon black (BP2000), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) in a weight ratio of 8:1:1 with N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) as a solvent.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
1 https://ahtt.mit.edu/