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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-6 and 9-22 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1 and 19 were amended and claims 7 and 8 were cancelled via the instant amendment dated 18 February 2026 which is acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 18 February 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The objection to claim 19 is WITHDRAWN as chemical was spelled properly in the amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Schirra is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that the amended language of claim 1 is not taught by Schirra. However, Schirra clearly involves PAN which is a polymer, the claim still permits a polymer to meet the limitation fo the carbon precursor.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Schirra is MAINTAINED as it was made en masse over the independent rejection.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Liang is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Liang does not disclose the claimed subject matter. However, Liang discloses xanthum gum which is a polymer.
The rejection of claims 12 and 14 under the same in further view of Kastner is also maintained as the traversal was made en masse over the independent rejection.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 10-, 19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Mennell is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Liang does not disclose the claimed subject matter. However, Mennell discloses petroleum pitch which s a pitch and meets the claim.
The rejection of claims 12 and 16-18 under the same in further view of Kastner is also maintained as the traversal was made en masse over the independent rejection.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 10, 11,1 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hu is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment as Hu disclosed tar binder which is not a PAH, polymer, pitch, or heavy petroleum oil. As is the rejection of claim 12 over the same in further view of Kastner as the base rejection was withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ito is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Liang does not disclose the claimed subject matter. However, Ito discloses tar pitch which is a pitch and still meets the claim.
The rejection of claims 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C> 103 over Ito in view of Hunter is MAINTAINED as it was made en masse over the independent rejection. As is the same for the rejection of claism 10, 12 and 16-18 over Ito in view of Kastner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schirra.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Schirra discloses a method of producing a carbon nanofiber (Schirra at 6) from a biomass feedstock comprising:
Providing a plurality of biochar particles having a size of 32-710 microns (Schirra at 4) which are produced from a biomass feedstock of vine pruning pellets at >600 C;
Mixing the biochar particles with a carbon precursor (PAN) of polyacrylonitrile at 1:9, 1:3, or 1:1 (Schirra at 5) thereby forming a mixture of secondary particles having the biochar particle encapsulated or coated by the binder (Id. especially as spinning is performed); and
Conducting a second heat treating step that carbonizes the obtained fiber via heating to a temperature of 1700 C (Schirra at 6).
As to claim 3, the biochar is ground to milled to under 32 microns (Schirra at 4).
Concerning claims 4-6, vineyard wood pellets are wood from grape plants which are
lignocellulosic and meet cellulose, etc., and also meet “wood waste” for claim 5 and “agro-food waste” for claim 6 as wine would be an agro-food.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 9 and 13, Liang discloses a method of producing carbon particles (Liang at “Abstract”) from biomass (tobacco stems, Id.) comprising:
Providing a plurality of biochar particles produced from the hydrothermal carbonization of tobacco stems (size=150 microns, Liang at 6371 L col) at 240 C;
Mixing the biochar particles with a carbon precursor at 5-15% with respect to the biomass (6371 R col; CMC or xantham gum) such that secondary particles are formed wherein the biochar is encapsulated by the binder; and
Heat treating the secondary particles at 900 C to form the particles (6372 L col).
Turning to claim 15, given application of HTC of the same material at the claimed range, one of
ordinary skill in the art would expect the same aspect of decomposition of the biomass molecules, polymerization and/or aromatization to form a mixture of graphene domaisn dispersed in a disordered matrix of carbon or hydrocarbon molecules wherein said graphene domaisn are each composed of hexagonal carbon atoms or fused aromatic rings having a length or width of 5 nm to 10 microns though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))".
Claims 1-6, 10, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Mennell.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 22, Mennell discloses a method of producing activated carbon from a biomass feedstock (recycled plastic, saw dust, cellulose, peanut shells, Mennell at [00620]-[0621]) comprising:
Providing a plurality of biochar particles having a size of 66 mm (Mennell at [0879]) which is produced from a biomass feedstock through a first heat-treating step at ~300~400 C ([0637]);
Mixing the biochar with a carbon precursor material (binder such as petroleum pitch (which is a polymer); [0253]-[0257]) at 2-30 wt.% of the biochar thusly forming a mixture of a secondary particle which is coated with the carbon precursor (Id.); and
Conducting a second heat-treating step that comprises heat-treating said secondary particles at a second temperature higher than the first temperature, ~900 (Mennell at [0280]).
Concerning claims 10 and 21, an additive of iron chloride can be added in the second pyrolysis step ([0676]).
With respect to claim 19, phenol-formaldehyde resin is a carbon source ([0257]) this is known in the art to be a phenolic hardener and as such it would fit “c[h]emical functionalizing agnet” as some level of functionalization would thusly be expected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 9, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito.
Regarding claims 1-3, Ito discloses a method of producing graphitic particles from a biomass feedstock (Ito at “Abstract”) comprising:
Providing a plurality of biochar particles having a size from 10 nm to 10 mm (Ito at [0063] discloses biomass which has a size of 6-8 mm in diameter and 3-40 mm in length which overlap 10 nm to 10 mm and as such presents a case of prima facie obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05) which is heat treated at 1200-1300 C to produce a biochar and then ground to 1 mm in size (Id.);
Mixing the biochar particles with a carbon precursor (biomass polymers such as refined wheat, cornstarch, or liquid dextrin or coal tar pitch (coal tar pitch is known in the art to contain anthracene, chrystene, etc. (to which the Examiner takes official notice), so this is considered to meet that claim., as this was not challenged it is taken to be admitted prior art), [0045]) at a ratio of 1:1000 to 100:1 (Ito at “Table 1” discloses the ratio is 68:32 or 64:34 which lies within the claimed range) to form a secondary particle wherein the biochar particles embedded in, encapsulated by, or coated on the binder particles (Ito at [0051] presents that the binder encapsulates the biochar); and
Conducting a second heat-treatment step that comprises heat-treating the secondary particles at a temperature within the same range of temperature (thusly it can be higher as shown in “Example 1” that temperatures of 1200-1300 C are used for step A and the baking step B and since both ranges overlap a prima facie case of obviousness exists there; Though it is also noted that a mixture of biomass rods are baked at 1500-2000 C which touches at the 1500 C endpoint and this is higher than the first temperature of 1200-1300 C) and then graphitizing 2500-3000 C to graphitize (Ito at [0070]).
As to claims 4-6, Ito discloses that the biomass feedstock can be kitchen waste ([0031]) or cellulose ([0046]).
Turning to claims 9 and 10, phenolic resin (a functionalizing agent) can be utilized as the binder ([0045]), this also meets an additive being added for claim 10 during the heating and phenolic resin is a material of claim 20.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirra as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Schirra discloses that the first heating temperature is >600 which overlaps that range claimed of 100-1500 C and is thusly prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Hunter.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Ito does not expressly state addition of a catalyst during biochar pyrolysis.
Hunter in a method of forming graphite via graphitization discloses addition of a catalyst of iron (Hunter at “Title”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ito in view of the graphitization catalyst of Hunter. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being conversion of any non-graphitizable carbon that may be present into graphite (Hunter at 4492 R col).
Claims 10, 12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Hunter as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Kastner.
Regarding claims 10, 16-18, Ito nor Hunter expressly state functionalizing the biochar.
Kastner in a method of producing biochar discloses that the biochar can be functionalized via ozone or sulfonates to form sulfonate groups, carboxylic groups, phenol (hydroxyl containing) groups, and lactone groups (Kastner at [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ito and Hunter in view of the functionalization of Kastner. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being formation of acid catalyst (Id.).
As to claim 12, Kastner discloses a bulk density for the biochar of 0.609g/cc-0.72g/cc (“Table 1”). Given usage of the same biochar of Kastner and the activating agents of Kastner in the process of Ito and Hunter, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect, absent evidence to the contrary, that the final product would have a density of 1.4-2.26g/cc though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))".
Claims 12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennell as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Kastner.
Regarding claims 16-18, Mennell does not expressly state functionalizing the biochar.
Kastner in a method of producing biochar discloses that the biochar can be functionalized via ozone or sulfonates to form sulfonate groups, carboxylic groups, phenol (hydroxyl containing) groups, and lactone groups (Kastner at [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Mennell in view of the functionalization of Kastner. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being formation of acid catalyst (Id.).
As to claim 12, Kastner discloses a bulk density for the biochar of 0.609g/cc-0.72g/cc (“Table 1”). Given usage of the same biochar of Kastner and the activating agents of Kastner in the process of Mennell, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect, absent evidence to the contrary, that the final product would have a density of 1.4-2.26g/cc though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Kastner.
Regarding claim 14, Liang does not expressly state functionalizing the biochar.
Kastner in a method of producing biochar discloses that the biochar can be functionalized via ozone or sulfonates to form sulfonate groups, carboxylic groups, phenol (hydroxyl containing) groups, and lactone groups (Kastner at [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Liang in view of the functionalization of Kastner. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being formation of acid catalyst (Id.).
As to claim 12, Kastner discloses a bulk density for the biochar of 0.609g/cc-0.72g/cc (“Table 1”). Given usage of the same biochar of Kastner and the activating agents of Kastner in the process of Lu and Hunter, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect, absent evidence to the contrary, that the final product would have a density of 1.4-2.26g/cc though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V.
Claims 10, 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirra as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Hu.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 21, Schirra does not expressly state applying an activating agent.
Hu in a method of forming a carbon material from heating biochar (Hu at 8th paragraph of “Disclosure of the Invention”) the usage of zinc chloride, iron chloride (also meeting claim 21, potassium hydroxide, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Schirra in view of the agents of Hu. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being activation of the material (Id.).
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 and 9-22 are finally rejected.
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 RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights