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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/15/2024 & 5/13/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-15 and 23 in the reply filed on 9/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/23/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 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 4 recites the limitation "the adhesive layer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no adhesive layer has been established in the claim or any preceding claim from which it depends. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted to read as “the adhesive material”.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 recites the limitation "grafoil" in each of the claims. The specification provides not special definition for “grafoil”; hence, the term grafoil is unclear. Examiner presumes “grafoil sheet” is referring to Grafoil® flexible graphite, a registered trademark of Graftech (reference attached Grafoil TDS).
Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the base layer and and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For examination purposes, “grafoil sheet” is interpreted to mean a flexible graphite sheet.
Claim 9 is rejected for dependence on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (US 5,190,696 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii teaches a method of forming a graphite powder mold (col. 14-20; claim 6, molded body formed from graphite particles), comprising:
applying a base layer (col. 3, lines 13-16, 27-31, sheet-like binder, sheets and films of the above-mentioned thermosetting resins or thermoplastic resins, and adhesive tapes, carbon fiber sheets and prepreg sheets);
depositing a graphite powder onto the base layer (col. 3, lines 66-68; claim 6, dispersing graphite particles on a binder sheet);
applying a cover layer onto an exposed surface of the graphite powder (col. 3, line 68 to col. 4, line 2; claim 6, another binder sheet is placed on the elastic graphite particles), wherein the cover layer and the base layer join at intersecting surfaces encasing the graphite powder to form the graphite powder mold (col. 4, lines 4-10, the molded body of the present invention can be prepared by subjecting the laminate to the above-mentioned molding operation; col. 3, lines).
Fujii teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose applying the base layer to a mold having one or more features such that the formed graphite powder mold has the one or more features. However, it is submitted providing the molding with features would be obvious to one skilled in the art to shape the molded body having a desired shape or configuration. Further, Fujii discloses the mixture is changed into a desired mold (col. 3, line 57). With respect to the order of applying the base layer to the mold prior to depositing a graphite powder onto the base layer, it is noted Fujii discloses the base layer, graphite powder and cover layer are collective placed in the desire mold (col. 4, lines 4-10). The transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). In the instant case, the process of Fujii is substantially identical or equivalent to the instant invention as the results is a powder graphite mold comprising cover and base layers.
Regarding claim 2, Fujii further discloses the base layer and the cover layer comprise an adhesive material (col. 3, line 30, adhesive sheet; Example 2A; adhesive tape).
Regarding claim 3, Fujii teaches all the elements of claim 2 and further discloses at least one of the base layer or cover layer comprises graphite powder (col. 2, line 2, mixing graphite particles with a binder (the binder being either the base or cover layer); col. 3, lines 55-56, binder is added to the elastic graphite material and they are sufficiently mixed).
Regarding claim 4, Fujii teaches all the elements of claim 2, but does not disclose the adhesive [material] has a thickness of about 0.1 to about 1.0 mm. However, Fuji discloses the particle size of the graphite particles which is mixed with the adhesive material is in the range of 10um to 1mm. Further, the elastic graphite and binder sheets are alternately laminated. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the thickness of the adhesive material to at lease the height of the graphite particles to accommodate mixing therein.
Regarding claim 6, Fuji teaches all the elements of claim 2 and further discloses curing the base layer and the cover layer simultaneously (col. 4, line 10, the laminate can be cured).
Regarding claim 13, Fujii further discloses the base layer comprises one of a paper material or a polymer material, the base layer having one or more features to match the one or more features of the mold, and wherein the cover layer comprises one of the paper material or the polymer material (claim 6, discloses binder sheet being a thermoplastic resin or thermosetting resin).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, in view of Sepulveda (US 2010/0144510 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Fujii teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose
inserting the graphite powder mold into a hot-pressing die, wherein the graphite powder mold comprises a first surface having the one or more raised features and second surface opposite the first surface having one or more depressed features corresponding to the one or more raised features of the first surface,
pouring a first layer of fill material into the hot-pressing die, wherein the fill material at least covers the one or more raised features of the graphite powder mold,
applying a first pressure to the fill material in a direction perpendicular to the first surface,
applying a second pressure to the graphite powder mold in a direction perpendicular to the second surface while applying the first pressure, and
heating the fill material while applying the first pressure and second pressure to compress the fill material in a direction of the thickness of the fill material to form a final part.
Sepulveda teaches pouring a fill material (paragraph 0023, powdered frozen spinal mix is loaded in a die mold) into a graphite mold (paragraph 0023, die mold…made of graphite), wherein the graphite mold has raised features (paragraph 0023, die mold having upper and bottom rams both conformed to the desired three-dimensional shape (i.e., raised features)); placing the graphite mold in a hot-pressing die (paragraph 0024, Centorr vacuum hot press); applying a first and a second pressure to the fill material (paragraphs 0024-0025, hot pressed…thereafter subjected to further densification via hot isostatic pressing); and heating the fill material during the application of pressure to form a part (paragraphs 0024-0025).
As both Fujii and Sepulveda relate to graphite molds, one or ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the graphite mold of Fuji for that of Sepulveda and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one skilled in the art. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to use the graphite mold of Fujii in order to manufacture a part therefrom according to the shape of the graphite mold.
Regarding claim 15, Fujii, as modified by Sepulveda, teaches all the elements of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose removing the final part from the hot-pressing die, and removing the graphite powder mold to expose the features of the final part. However, it is submitted removal of the final part from the hot-pressing die and the graphite powder mold therefrom would have been implicit to one skilled in the art to obtain the final part for use.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, in view of Scoggins (US 2019/0345052 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Fujii teaches a method of forming a graphite powder mold (col. 14-20; claim 6, molded body formed from graphite particles), comprising:
pouring a mixture of graphite powder and binder (col. 2, lines 11-12, mixing elastic graphite particles with a binder) into a cold pressing die (col. 3, lines 56-57, changed in a desired mold and compression-molded; noting no heat is applied as the molded body may be fired thereafter);
applying a force to compress the mixture (col. 3, lines 56-57, changed in a desired mold and compression-molded) into a graphite powder disk (noting the compressed laminated sheet of Fujii can be broadly and reasonably interpreted as a ‘disk’); and
removing the graphite powder disk from the die (implicit)
Fujii teaches all the elements of claim 23, but does not disclose machining the graphite powder disk to form one or more features on the graphite powder disk.
Scoggins teaches a method of forming a mold having a graphite mold body paragraph 0015), wherein the mold body is machined from a piece of graphite to provide features on the mold body (claim 18). Hence, providing features on a graphite mold via machine is known in the art. One skilled in the art could have applied this known technique (i.e., machining features) as disclosed by Scoggins to the graphite mold of Fujii and the results would have been predictable to one skilled in the arty. One would have been motivated to machine features on the graphite mold after molding to allow different features to be applied to the graphite mold after molding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-12 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, as well as resolving the 112b rejections identified.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose:
“curing the base layer prior to depositing graphite power onto the layer; and
curing the cover layer after applying the cover layer onto the exposed surface of the graphite powder.” nor the use of a grafoil (i.e., flexible graphite sheet) as a base layer or cover layer in a method of forming a graphite powder mold.
The closest prior art, Fujii (US 5,190,696 A), discloses a method of forming a graphite powder mold (col. 14-20; claim 6, molded body formed from graphite particles), comprising: applying a base layer (col. 3, lines 13-16, 27-31, sheet-like binder, sheets and films of the above-mentioned thermosetting resins or thermoplastic resins, and adhesive tapes, carbon fiber sheets and prepreg sheets); depositing a graphite powder onto the base layer (col. 3, lines 66-68; claim 6, dispersing graphite particles on a binder sheet); applying a cover layer onto an exposed surface of the graphite powder (col. 3, line 68 to col. 4, line 2; claim 6, another binder sheet is placed on the elastic graphite particles), wherein the cover layer and the base layer join at intersecting surfaces encasing the graphite powder to form the graphite powder mold (col. 4, lines 4-10, the molded body of the present invention can be prepared by subjecting the laminate to the above-mentioned molding operation; col. 3, lines). However, Fujii neither teaches nor suggest curing the base layer prior to depositing graphite power onto the layer; and curing the cover layer after applying the cover layer onto the exposed surface of the graphite powder; nor the base layer or cover layer being a flexible graphite sheet. In fact, Fujii explicitly teaches curing after the molded body (i.e., graphite powder mold) is formed (col. 3, lines 62-63; the molded body can be heated to effect curing). Further, Fuji discloses mixing graphite particles into the base and cover layers, the base and cover layers being thermosetting resins or thermoplastic resins, and adhesive tapes, carbon fiber sheets and prepreg sheets (col. 3, lines 27-31). One skilled in the art would not look to nor benefit from using a flexible graphite sheet as either the base or cover layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 2/19/2026