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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted Claim 24 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Independent Claim 1 requires, among all other limitations, that (1) the micro-oxidizing atmosphere comprises a reactive gas and a non-reactive gas which is nitrogen and/or argon, (2) the instantly claimed volume fraction of carbon dioxide in the micro-oxidizing atmosphere, and (3) the instantly claimed volume fraction of oxygen in the micro-oxidizing atmosphere.
Independent Claim 19 requires, among all other limitations, that (4) the micro-oxidizing atmosphere comprises a reactive gas and a non-reactive gas which is nitrogen and/or argon, (5) the reactive gas comprises ozone, and (6) the instantly claimed volume fraction of ozone in the micro-oxidizing atmosphere.
Newly presented independent Claim 24 requires, among all other limitations, (7) heating the artificial graphite in a first non-reactive atmosphere in accordance with the instantly claimed temperature range, (8) maintaining the claimed temperature in a carbon dioxide micro-oxidizing atmosphere for the instantly claimed amount of time, (9) cooling artificial graphite in a second non-reactive atmosphere, and (10) the first and second non-reactive atmospheres explicitly comprise nitrogen.
Therefore, the aforementioned (1), (2), and (3) structural limitations are not each explicitly shared or required by independent Claim 24, and the aforementioned (7), (8), (9), and (10) structural limitations of Claim 24 are not each explicitly shared or required by independent Claim 1 (or its dependent Claims).
Furthermore, the aforementioned (4), (5), and (6) structural limitations are not each explicitly shared or required by independent Claim 24, and the aforementioned (7), (8), (9), and (10) structural limitations of Claim 24 are not each explicitly shared or required by independent Claim 19 (or its dependent Claims)
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claim 24 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-13, 18-24, with Claims 9-13, 18, 24 being withdrawn from consideration.
The examined Claims are 1-8, 19-23, with Claims 1-3, 5-7 being amended, and Claims 19-23 being newly added.
Response to Arguments
In view of the aforementioned amendments to the Claims, the previous rejection(s) of record under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Furthermore, Applicant mainly argues that the prior art rejections of record are overcome in view of the amendments to the Claims (Pages 7-10 of Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims. In addition, all previous prior art rejections of record are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency with the terms “V1” and “V2” in Claim 1, the terms “V1” and “V2” recited in each of Claims 1, 5-7 should be written as “V1” and “V2,” respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19, 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency with the term “V3” in Claims 19 and 23, the term “V3” recited in each of Claims 19 and 23 should be written as “V3.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-8, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahr et al. (US 2015/0079477).
Regarding Claim 1, Spahr teaches a surface-modified synthetic graphite (“modified graphite”), and a method of preparing said surface-modified graphite (“preparation method”) (Abstract). Spahr teaches that the method comprises steps of (1) providing low-area synthetic graphite (“providing a graphite substrate”), and (2) heat-treating, in a suitable furnace, said low-area synthetic graphite in an oxidizing atmosphere (“heat-treating the graphite substrate”) to obtain the surface-modified synthetic graphite ([0071]-[0075]). More specifically, Spahr teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere is, for example, a combination of O2, CO2, O3 (given that Spahr specifically teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere may be one or any combination of O2, air, CO2, steam, O3, and NOx) processing gases, and an inert nitrogen or argon carrier gas (i.e. the oxidizing atmosphere is a “micro-oxidizing” atmosphere comprising a “reactive gas” that comprises “CO2,” “O2,” and O3, and a “non-reactive gas” which is “nitrogen” or “argon”) ([0071]-[0072]). Spahr teaches that the heat-treating is performed at a temperature of about 500°C to about 1100°C for a period of 2 min to 0.5 hour ([0071]-[0074]). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Spahr does not explicitly teach that the volume fraction of CO2 in the oxidizing atmosphere is in accordance with the instantly claimed range, or that the volume fraction of O2 is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Spahr further teaches that constituent processing gases utilized in the oxidizing atmosphere may be mixed so as to increase oxidation processing speed, wherein Spahr notes that processing speed increases with increased oxygen concentration.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the concentration of oxygen present in the oxidizing atmosphere of Spahr (for example, by controlling the relative volume fractions of the CO2 and O2 processing gases such that they are in accordance with the instantly claimed V1 and V2 ranges, respectively) based on the desired and/required oxidation processing speed, as taught by Spahr, given not only because said oxidation processing speed would be directly affected by the selection of the CO2 and O2 volume fractions, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Spahr.
Regarding Claim 2, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the heat-treating is performed at a temperature of about 500°C to about 1100°C for a period of 2 min to 0.5 hour. The upper limit temperature of “about 1100°C” is considered to overlap with the instantly claimed lower temperature of “1200°C.” It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 3, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the reactive gas further comprises O3.
Spahr does not explicitly teach that the volume fraction of O3 in the oxidizing atmosphere is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Spahr further teaches that constituent processing gases utilized in the oxidizing atmosphere may be mixed so as to increase oxidation processing speed, wherein Spahr notes that processing speed increases with increased oxygen concentration.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the concentration of oxygen present in the oxidizing atmosphere of Spahr (for example, by controlling the relative volume fraction of the O3 processing gas such that it is in accordance with the instantly claimed V3 range) based on the desired and/required oxidation processing speed, as taught by Spahr, given not only because said oxidation processing speed would be directly affected by the selection of the O3 volume fraction, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Spahr.
Regarding Claim 4, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
Spahr does not explicitly teach that the volume fractions of O2 and O3 in the oxidizing atmosphere satisfy the instantly claimed range.
However, Spahr further teaches that constituent processing gases utilized in the oxidizing atmosphere may be mixed so as to increase oxidation processing speed, wherein Spahr notes that processing speed increases with increased oxygen concentration.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the concentration of oxygen present in the oxidizing atmosphere of Spahr (for example, by controlling the relative volume fractions of the O2 and O3 processing gases such that the instantly claimed range is satisfied) based on the desired and/required oxidation processing speed, as taught by Spahr, given not only because said oxidation processing speed would be directly affected by the selection of the O2 and O3 volume fractions, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Spahr.
Regarding Claim 5, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Spahr does not explicitly teach that the volume fractions of CO2 and O2 in the oxidizing atmosphere satisfy the instantly claimed range.
However, Spahr further teaches that constituent processing gases utilized in the oxidizing atmosphere may be mixed so as to increase oxidation processing speed, wherein Spahr notes that processing speed increases with increased oxygen concentration.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the concentration of oxygen present in the oxidizing atmosphere of Spahr (for example, by controlling the relative volume fractions of the CO2 and O2 processing gases such that the instantly claimed ranges are satisfied) based on the desired and/required oxidation processing speed, as taught by Spahr, given not only because said oxidation processing speed would be directly affected by the selection of the CO2 and O2 volume fractions, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Spahr.
Regarding Claim 6, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Spahr does not explicitly teach that the volume fractions of CO2 and O2 in the oxidizing atmosphere satisfy the instantly claimed range.
However, Spahr further teaches that constituent processing gases utilized in the oxidizing atmosphere may be mixed so as to increase oxidation processing speed, wherein Spahr notes that processing speed increases with increased oxygen concentration.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the concentration of oxygen present in the oxidizing atmosphere of Spahr (for example, by controlling the relative volume fractions of the CO2 and O2 processing gases such that the instantly claimed ranges are satisfied) based on the desired and/required oxidation processing speed, as taught by Spahr, given not only because said oxidation processing speed would be directly affected by the selection of the CO2 and O2 volume fractions, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Spahr.
Regarding Claim 7, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Spahr does not explicitly teach that the volume fractions of CO2 and O2 in the oxidizing atmosphere satisfy the instantly claimed range.
However, Spahr further teaches that constituent processing gases utilized in the oxidizing atmosphere may be mixed so as to increase oxidation processing speed, wherein Spahr notes that processing speed increases with increased oxygen concentration.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the concentration of oxygen present in the oxidizing atmosphere of Spahr (for example, by controlling the relative volume fractions of the CO2 and O2 processing gases such that the instantly claimed ranges are satisfied) based on the desired and/required oxidation processing speed, as taught by Spahr, given not only because said oxidation processing speed would be directly affected by the selection of the CO2 and O2 volume fractions, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Spahr.
Regarding Claim 8, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described, Spahr teaches a surface-modified synthetic graphite (“modified graphite”) prepared by the method.
Regarding Claim 19, Spahr teaches a surface-modified synthetic graphite (“modified graphite”), and a method of preparing said surface-modified graphite (“preparation method”) (Abstract). Spahr teaches that the method comprises steps of (1) providing low-area synthetic graphite (“providing a graphite substrate”), and (2) heat-treating, in a suitable furnace, said low-area synthetic graphite in an oxidizing atmosphere (“heat-treating the graphite substrate”) to obtain the surface-modified synthetic graphite ([0071]-[0075]). More specifically, Spahr teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere comprises a O3 (given that Spahr specifically teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere may be one or any combination of O2, air, CO2, steam, O3, and NOx) processing gas, and an inert nitrogen or argon carrier gas (i.e. the oxidizing atmosphere is a “micro-oxidizing” atmosphere comprising a “reactive gas” that comprises “O3,” and a “non-reactive gas” which is “nitrogen” or “argon”) ([0071]-[0072]). Spahr teaches that the heat-treating is performed at a temperature of about 500°C to about 1100°C for a period of 2 min to 0.5 hour ([0071]-[0074]). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Spahr does not explicitly teach that the volume fraction of O3 in the oxidizing atmosphere is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Spahr further teaches that constituent processing gases utilized in the oxidizing atmosphere may be mixed so as to increase oxidation processing speed, wherein Spahr notes that processing speed increases with increased oxygen concentration.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the concentration of oxygen present in the oxidizing atmosphere of Spahr (for example, by controlling the relative volume fraction of the O3 processing gas such that it is in accordance with the instantly claimed V3 range) based on the desired and/required oxidation processing speed, as taught by Spahr, given not only because said oxidation processing speed would be directly affected by the selection of the O3 volume fraction, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Spahr.
Regarding Claim 20, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 19, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 19), the heat-treating is performed at a temperature of about 500°C to about 1100°C for a period of 2 min to 0.5 hour ([0071]-[0074]). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 21, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 19, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 19), the oxidizing atmosphere comprises the O3 processing gas and an inert carrier gas which may be N2.
Regarding Claim 22, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 21, as previously described.
Spahr does not explicitly teach that that the volume ratio of N2 to O3 satisfies the instantly claimed range.
However, Spahr further teaches that constituent processing gases utilized in the oxidizing atmosphere may be mixed so as to increase oxidation processing speed, wherein Spahr notes that processing speed increases with increased oxygen concentration.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the concentration of oxygen present in the oxidizing atmosphere of Spahr (for example, by controlling the relative volume fractions of the N2 inert carrier gas and the O3 processing gas such that the instantly claimed range is satisfied) based on the desired and/required oxidation processing speed, as taught by Spahr, given not only because said oxidation processing speed would be directly affected by the selection of the N2 and O3 volume fractions, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Spahr.
Regarding Claim 23, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 19, as previously described.
Spahr does not explicitly teach that the volume fraction of O3 in the oxidizing atmosphere is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Spahr further teaches that constituent processing gases utilized in the oxidizing atmosphere may be mixed so as to increase oxidation processing speed, wherein Spahr notes that processing speed increases with increased oxygen concentration.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the concentration of oxygen present in the oxidizing atmosphere of Spahr (for example, by controlling the relative volume fraction of the O3 processing gas such that it is in accordance with the instantly claimed V3 range) based on the desired and/required oxidation processing speed, as taught by Spahr, given not only because said oxidation processing speed would be directly affected by the selection of the O3 volume fraction, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Spahr.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahr et al. (US 2015/0079477), and further in view of Fuse et al. (JP 6251964, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 2, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Spahr does not explicitly teach that the heat-treating is performed at a temperature of 1200°C to 1400°C.
However, Fuse teaches a multilayered carbon material for use in a negative electrode of a secondary battery (Abstract, [0001]). Fuse teaches that when manufacturing the multilayered carbon material, the precursor of the multilayered carbon material is subjected to heat-treating at preferably 900-1500°C ([0187]-[0189], [0194]-[0196]). Fuse teaches that as the heat-treating temperature becomes lower, more amorphous carbon with low crystallinity is obtained, whereas as the heat-treating temperature becomes higher, more graphitized material with high crystallinity is obtained ([0194]-[0196]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the heat-treating temperature within a range of 900°C to 1500°C (for example, to a temperature in accordance with the instantly claimed range) based on the desired and/or required crystallinity characteristics, as taught by Fuse, given not only because said crystallinity characteristics would be directly affected by the selection of heat-treating temperature, but also because such a modification would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success but one of ordinary skill in the art based on the disclosure of Fuse.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights