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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-8 (i.e. Group I) in the reply filed on 04/26/26 is acknowledged. Accordingly, non-elected Claims 9-18 (i.e. Group II) are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Interpretation
The instant Claims refer to a “micro-oxidizing atmosphere.” For purposes of examination, the term “micro-oxidizing atmosphere” will be interpreted in accordance with [0056] of the Specification as originally filed. Specifically, “micro-oxidizing atmosphere” will be interpreted to mean a protective atmosphere with a micro or low oxidizing power that is higher than the oxidizing power of an inert atmosphere but lower than or equal to the oxidizing power of an air atmosphere (the volume fraction of oxygen in air is presumed to be 21%).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the heat treatment." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (while it is noted that “heat-treating” is referenced in Claim 1, said phrase does not serve as antecedent basis for the term “the heat treatment”).
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, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 air (wherein the volume fraction of oxygen in air is presumed to be 21%), carbon dioxide, ozone, or any combination of said gases (i.e. the oxidizing atmosphere is a “micro-oxidizing” atmosphere comprising, in all instances, a “reactive gas” which is one or more of “CO2, O2, and O3”) ([0071]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 3, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Spahr teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere is air (wherein the volume fraction of oxygen in air is presumed to be 21%). In said instance, the volume fraction of carbon dioxide is less than 100% (i.e. “V1” is “less than or equal to 100%”), the volume fraction of oxygen is 21% (i.e. “V2” is “less than or equal to 21%), and the volume fraction of ozone is 0% (i.e. “V3” is “less than or equal to 21%).
Alternatively, and as previously described (See Claim 1), Spahr teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere is carbon dioxide. In said instance, the volume fraction of carbon dioxide is 100% (i.e. “V1” is “less than or equal to 100%”), the volume fraction of oxygen is 0% (i.e. “V2” is “less than or equal to 21%), and the volume fraction of ozone is 0% (i.e. “V3” is “less than or equal to 21%).
Regarding Claim 4, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), in the instance where the oxidizing atmosphere is carbon dioxide, the volume fraction of oxygen is 0%, and the volume fraction of ozone is 0% (i.e. “V2+V3” is 0, and therefore, “≤ 20%”).
Regarding Claim 5, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Spahr further teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere further comprises an inert carrier gas (“non-reactive gas”) such as nitrogen or argon ([0072]).
Regarding Claim 6, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Spahr teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere is air (“air atmosphere”).
Alternatively, and as previously described (See Claim 1), Spahr teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere is any combination of air, carbon dioxide, and ozone. Accordingly, the oxidizing atmosphere is interpreted to be an “air atmosphere” under any instance where the oxidizing atmosphere includes air therein (i.e. the inclusion of air in the atmosphere renders the atmosphere, to at least some degree, an air atmosphere).
Regarding Claim 7, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Spahr teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere is carbon dioxide (“CO2 atmosphere”).
Alternatively, and as previously described (See Claim 1), Spahr teaches that the oxidizing atmosphere is any combination of air, carbon dioxide, and ozone. Accordingly, the oxidizing atmosphere is interpreted to be a “CO2 atmosphere” under any instance where the oxidizing atmosphere includes carbon dioxide therein (i.e. the inclusion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere renders the atmosphere, to at least some degree, a carbon dioxide atmosphere).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (CN 111392723, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin teaches a modified porous graphite (“modified graphite”), and a method of preparing said modified porous graphite (“preparation method”) (Abstract, [0009]). Lin teaches the method comprises steps of (1) providing raw graphite (“providing a graphite substrate”), and (2) heat-treating said raw graphite in a corrosive atmosphere (“heat-treating the graphite substrate”) to obtain the modified porous graphite ([0010]-[0012]). More specifically, Lin teaches that the corrosive atmosphere is air (wherein the volume fraction of oxygen in air is presumed to be 21%), carbon dioxide, or an oxygen-containing atmosphere (i.e. the corrosive atmosphere is a “micro-oxidizing” atmosphere comprising, in all instances, a “reactive gas” which is one or more of “CO2, O2, and O3”) ([0012], [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Lin teaches that the heat-treating is performed at a temperature ranging from 1000-1200°C ([0017]). Lin also teaches that the heat-treating lasts for a period ranging from 0.5-2 hours ([0018]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Lin teaches that the corrosive atmosphere is air (wherein the volume fraction of oxygen in air is presumed to be 21%). In said instance, the volume fraction of carbon dioxide is less than 100% (i.e. “V1” is “less than or equal to 100%”), the volume fraction of oxygen is 21% (i.e. “V2” is “less than or equal to 21%), and the volume fraction of ozone is 0% (i.e. “V3” is “less than or equal to 21%).
Alternatively, and as previously described (See Claim 1), Lin teaches that the corrosive atmosphere is carbon dioxide. In said instance, the volume fraction of carbon dioxide is 100% (i.e. “V1” is “less than or equal to 100%”), the volume fraction of oxygen is 0% (i.e. “V2” is “less than or equal to 21%), and the volume fraction of ozone is 0% (i.e. “V3” is “less than or equal to 21%).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), in the instance where the corrosive atmosphere is carbon dioxide, the volume fraction of oxygen is 0%, and the volume fraction of ozone is 0% (i.e. “V2+V3” is 0, and therefore, “≤ 20%”).
Regarding Claim 5, Lin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Lin teaches that the corrosive atmosphere is an oxygen-containing atmosphere. Lin teaches that said atmosphere further comprises an inert gas (“non-reactive gas”) ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 6, Lin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Lin teaches that the corrosive atmosphere is air (“air atmosphere”).
Regarding Claim 7, Lin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Lin teaches that the corrosive atmosphere is carbon dioxide (“CO2 atmosphere”).
Regarding Claim 8, Lin teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described, Lin teaches a modified porous graphite (“modified graphite”) prepared by the method.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahr et al. (US 2015/0079477).
Regarding Claim 2, Spahr teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Spahr teaches that the heat-treating is performed at a temperature ranging from about 500-1100°C ([0071]). Spahr also teaches that the heat-treating lasts for a period ranging from 2 minutes to 0.5 hours ([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)).
Conclusion
The following reference(s) is/are deemed relevant to the instant Claims, but is/are not currently relied upon in a prior art rejection:
Ikeda et al. (JP2006164570, provided by Applicant in the 08/04/23 IDS) discloses, as compared to that of the instant Claims, a substantially similar method of preparing a modified graphite material including heat-treating said graphite material in a “micro-oxidizing atmosphere” comprising oxygen therein (e.g. an air atmosphere).
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