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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 displays two sets of data but is missing suitable descriptive legends necessary for understanding the figure (see MPEP § 608.02 V.). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0006] the “t” in “The” should not be capitalized; “Advantageously, The PEDOT:PSS fiber” should read as “Advantageously, the PEDOT:PSS fiber”
[0037] is missing a space between “Figure” and “1A;” “Figure1A” should read as “Figure 1A”
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orbey, et. al, 2021 (US 2021/0130987 A1), referred to as Orbey from herein, in view of Zhamu, et. al., 2009 (US 2009/0269511 A1), referred to as Zhamu-1 from herein and in view of Yao, et. al., 2018 (High-performance Free-standing Capacitor Electrodes of Multilayered Co9S8 Plates wrapped by Carbonized Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(styrene sulfonate)/Reduced Graphene Oxide Journal of Power Sources 2018, 379, 167 – 173), referred to as Yao from herein.
Regarding claim 1, Orbey teaches a method of making carbon fibers, comprising of converting polymer fibers into carbon fibers (see Abstract) by direct carbonization without oxidizing first ([0077], “in the processes described herein, there is no need for the oxidative stabilization step”).
However, Orbey does not teach poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly (styrene sulfonate), or PEDOT:PSS, as the polymer fiber. Zhamu-1 teaches the benefits of using intrinsically conductive polymers, such as PEDOT:PSS ([0121] provides a list of conductive polymers that can be used to make polymer nanowires, which includes PEDOT:PSS), to create conductive polymer nanowires. More specifically, Zhamu-1 discloses that the carbonization and graphitization of a conductive polymer nanowire can increase the electrical conductivity of the resulting carbon nanowire ([0120]).
While an oxidation step is not explicitly required (there is no mention of an oxidation step in [0058], and [0066] states that nanowires “may be ‘oxidized,’” suggesting that an oxidation step is not required), Zhamu-1 teaches an example of carbonizing polyacrylonitrile (PAN) nanowires, which includes an oxidation step (see Example 1 and 2, [0166] – [0168]).
However, Yao teaches of producing an electrode with multiple layers of Co9S8 wrapped with carbonized PEDOT:PSS/reduced graphene oxide (Abstract) where the carbonization of PEDOT:PSS layer done in an inert atmosphere (Section 2.2 titled “Preparation of the cP/rGo/Co9S8 Layers” on Page 168 describes carbonizing the PEDOT:PSS in an argon atmosphere). While Yao does not specifically use the phrase direct carbonization, the term “direct carbonization” is broadly interpreted as carbonizing a material in an inert atmosphere, or a non-oxidizing environment. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the carbonization of PEDOT:PSS disclosed in Yao is direct carbonization.
Orbey and Zhamu-1 are analogous to the present invention because Orbey is in the same field of carbonizing and graphitizing polymer fibers while Zhamu-1 is in the field of preparing carbon-based conductive materials, similar to the present invention. Yao is also analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of directly carbonizing PEDOT:PSS.
Therefore, while Zhamu-1 specifically teaches on nanowires rather than fibers, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed in Orbey with PEDOT:PSS, as taught by Zhamu-1, to potentially enhance the electrical conductivity of the resulting carbon fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that direct carbonization of PEDOT:PSS could yield successful results as demonstrated by Yao.
Regarding claim 2, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 1, and Orbey further teaches heating the PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature of between about 1000 ºC and about 1700 ºC ([0034] provides list of temperature ranges for carbonization, which includes 1000 ºC – 1700 ºC) for a first predetermined period of time sufficient to carbonize the PEDOT:PSS fibers into carbon fibers ([0037] describes the final temperature for final pyrolysis, which may be carbonization or graphitization, being held for a given period of time, resulting in carbon fibers from poly(p-phenylene), or PPP, fibers).
Regarding claim 3, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 1, and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 2. Orbey further teaches completing the heating of the PEDOT:PSS fibers in a flowing inert gas atmosphere ([0034] describes the carbonization occurring under an inert atmosphere, such as under nitrogen, argon, or combination thereof).
Regarding claim 4, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 1, and Orbey further teaches of heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 2. Orbey further teaches subsequently heating the carbon fibers to a second target temperature of between about 2000 ºC and about 3000 ºC ([0038] describes an optional graphitization step after the carbonization step, which includes 2000 ºC – 3000 ºC as one of the temperature ranges for graphitization) for a second predetermined period of time sufficient to graphitize the carbon fibers ([0037] describes the final temperature for final pyrolysis, which may be carbonization or graphitization, being held for a given period of time, resulting in carbon fibers from PPP fibers).
The range represented by Orbey is broader than the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of 2000 ºC – 2800 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 1, and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 2 and to a second target temperature according to claim 4. Orbey further teaches completing the heating of the carbon fibers in a flowing inert atmosphere ([0038] the graphitization occurring under an inert atmosphere, such as under nitrogen or argon).
Regarding claim 6, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 1, and Orbey further teaches heating the PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature of between about 1000 ºC and about 1700 ºC ([0034] provides list of temperature ranges, which includes 1000 ºC – 1700 ºC) for a first predetermined period of time sufficient to carbonize the PEDOT:PSS fibers into carbon fibers ([0037] describes the final temperature for final pyrolysis, which may be carbonization or graphitization, being held for a given period of time, resulting in carbon fibers from PPP fibers).
The range represented by Orbey is broader than the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of 1100 ºC – 1400 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 1, and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 6. Orbey further teaches completing the heating of the PEDOT:PSS fibers in a flowing inert gas atmosphere ([0034] describes the carbonization occurring under an inert atmosphere, such as under nitrogen, argon, or combination thereof).
Regarding claim 8, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 1 and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 6. Orbey further teaches subsequently heating the carbon fibers to a second target temperature of between about 2100 ºC and about 3000 ºC ([0038] describes an optional graphitization step after the carbonization step, which includes 2100 ºC – 3000 ºC as one of the temperature ranges for graphitization) for a second predetermined period of time sufficient to graphitize the carbon fibers ([0037] describes the final temperature for final pyrolysis, which may be carbonization or graphitization, being held for a given period of time, resulting in carbon fibers from PPP fibers).
The range represented by Orbey is broader than the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of 2200 ºC – 2600 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 1 and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 6 and to a second target temperature according to claim 8. Orbey further teaches completing the heating of the carbon fibers in a flowing inert atmosphere ([0038] the graphitization occurring under an inert atmosphere, such as under nitrogen or argon).
Regarding claim 10, Orbey teaches a method of making carbon fibers consisting of converting polymer fibers into carbon fibers (see Abstract) by direct carbonization without oxidizing first ([0077], “in the process described herein, there is no need for the oxidative stabilization step”).
However, Orbey does not teach poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly (styrene sulfonate), or PEDOT:PSS, as the polymer fiber. Zhamu-1 teaches the benefits of using intrinsically conductive polymers, such as PEDOT:PSS ([0121] provides a list of conductive polymers that can be used to make polymer nanowires, which includes PEDOT:PSS), to create conductive polymer nanowires. More specifically, Zhamu-1 discloses that the carbonization and graphitization of a conductive polymer nanowire can increase the electrical conductivity of the resulting carbon nanowire ([0120]).
While an oxidation step is not explicitly required (there is no mention of an oxidation step in [0058], and [0066] states that nanowires “may be ‘oxidized,’” suggesting that an oxidation step is not required), Zhamu-1 teaches an example of carbonizing polyacrylonitrile (PAN) nanowires, which includes an oxidation step (see Example 1 and 2, [0166] – [0168]).
However, Yao teaches of producing an electrode with multiple layers of Co9S8 wrapped with carbonized PEDOT:PSS/reduced graphene oxide (Abstract) where the carbonization of PEDOT:PSS layer done in an inert atmosphere (Section 2.2 titled “Preparation of the cP/rGo/Co9S8 Layers” on Page 168 describes carbonizing the PEDOT:PSS in an argon atmosphere). While Yao does not specifically use the phrase direct carbonization, the term “direct carbonization” is broadly interpreted as carbonizing a material in an inert atmosphere, or a non-oxidizing environment. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the carbonization of PEDOT:PSS disclosed in Yao is direct carbonization.
Therefore, while Zhamu-1 specifically teaches on nanowires rather than fibers, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed in Orbey with PEDOT:PSS, as taught by Zhamu-1, to potentially enhance the electrical conductivity of the resulting carbon fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that direct carbonization of PEDOT:PSS could yield successful results as demonstrated by Yao.
Regarding claim 11, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 10, and Orbey further teaches heating the PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature of between about 1000 ºC and about 1700 ºC ([0034] provides list of temperature ranges for carbonization, which includes 1000 ºC – 1700 ºC) for a first predetermined period of time sufficient to carbonize the PEDOT:PSS fibers into carbon fibers ([0037] describes the final temperature for final pyrolysis, which may be carbonization or graphitization, being held for a given period of time, resulting in carbon fibers from PPP fibers).
Regarding claim 12, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 10, and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 11. Orbey further teaches completing the heating of the PEDOT:PSS fibers in a flowing inert gas atmosphere ([0034] describes the carbonization occurring under an inert atmosphere, such as under nitrogen, argon, or combination thereof).
Regarding claim 13, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 10, and Orbey further teaches of heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 11. Orbey further teaches subsequently heating the carbon fibers to a second target temperature of between about 2000 ºC and about 3000 ºC ([0038] describes an optional graphitization step after the carbonization step, which includes 2000 ºC – 3000 ºC as one of the temperature ranges for graphitization) for a second predetermined period of time sufficient to graphitize the carbon fibers ([0037] describes the final temperature for final pyrolysis, which may be carbonization or graphitization, being held for a given period of time, resulting in carbon fibers from PPP fibers).
The range represented by Orbey is broader than the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of 2000 ºC – 2800 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 10, and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 11 and to a second target temperature according to claim 13. Orbey further teaches completing the heating of the carbon fibers in a flowing inert atmosphere ([0038] describes the graphitization occurring under an inert atmosphere, such as under nitrogen or argon).
Regarding claim 15, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 10, and Orbey further teaches heating the PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature of between about 1000 ºC and about 1700 ºC ([0034] provides list of temperature ranges, which includes 1000 ºC – 1700 ºC) for a first predetermined period of time sufficient to carbonize the PEDOT:PSS fibers into carbon fibers ([0037] describes the final temperature for final pyrolysis, which may be carbonization or graphitization, being held for a given period of time, resulting in carbon fibers from PPP fibers).
The range represented by Orbey is broader than the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of 1100 ºC – 1400 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 and in view of Yao teaches a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 10 and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 15. Orbey further teaches completing the heating of the PEDOT:PSS fibers in a flowing inert gas atmosphere ([0034] describes the carbonization occurring under an inert atmosphere, such as under nitrogen, argon, or combination thereof).
Regarding claim 17, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 teaches and in view of Yao a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 10 and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 15. Orbey further teaches subsequently heating the carbon fibers to a second target temperature of between about 2100 ºC and about 3000 ºC ([0038] describes an optional graphitization step after the carbonization step, which includes 2100 ºC – 3000 ºC as one of the temperature ranges for graphitization) for a second predetermined period of time sufficient to graphitize the carbon fibers ([0037] describes the final temperature for final pyrolysis, which may be carbonization or graphitization, being held for a given period of time, resulting in carbon fibers from PPP fibers).
The range represented by Orbey is broader than the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of 2200 ºC – 2600 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Orbey in view of Zhamu-1 teaches and in view of Yao a method of making carbon fibers according to claim 10 and Orbey further teaches heating PEDOT:PSS to a first target temperature according to claim 15 and to a second target temperature according to claim 17. Orbey further teaches completing the heating of the carbon fibers in a flowing inert atmosphere ([0038] describes the graphitization occurring under an inert atmosphere, such as under nitrogen or argon).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/308,642 to Weisenberger in view of Zhamu-1. The claims of the instant application and the claims of the copending application are compared in the table below.
Instant Application 18/541,729
Copending Application 18/308,642
A method of making carbon fibers, comprising:
converting poly (3 ,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) :poly (styrene sulfonate) fibers (PEDOT:PSS fibers) into the carbon fibers by direct carbonization without previously oxidizing the PEDOT:PSS fibers.
A method for joule carbonization of fibers, comprising:
subjecting the fibers, made from an intrinsically electrically-conductive material, to a current density sufficient to heat the fibers to a carbonization temperature of between 900- 2000°C whereby the fibers are carbonized into carbon fibers.
The method of claim 1, including heating the PEDOT:PSS fibers to a first target temperature of between about 1,000 ºC and about 1,700 ºC for a first predetermined period of time sufficient to carbonize the PEDOT:PSS fibers into carbon fibers.
The method of claim 1, further including feeding the fibers across a first electrically conductive roller and a second electrically conductive roller.
The method of claim 2, including completing the heating of the PEDOT:PSS fibers in a flowing inert gas atmosphere.
The method of claim 2, further including applying a current across the first electrically conductive roller and the second electrically conductive roller.
The method of claim 2, including subsequently heating the carbon fibers to a second target temperature of between about 2,000 ºC and about 2,800 ºC for a second predetermined period of time sufficient to graphitize the carbon fibers.
The method of claim 3, further including balancing, by a controller, (a) rotation speeds of the first electrically conductive roller and the second electrically conductive roller and (b) the current density of the applied current to allow continuous processing of the fiber.
The method of claim 4, including completing the heating of the carbon fibers in a flowing inert gas atmosphere.
The method of claim 4, further including the applying of the current to the fiber without any previous oxidation or stabilization processing of the fiber
The method of claim 1, including heating the PEDOT:PSS fibers to a first target temperature of between about 1,100 ºC and about 1,400 ºC for a first predetermined period of time sufficient to carbonize the PEDOT:PSS fibers into carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of Weisenberger ‘642, upon which claim 5 depends, recites a method of making carbon fibers comprising converting an electrically conductive material into carbon fibers by carbonization (see Table above) while claim 5 further recites a method of making carbon fibers without previous oxidation (see Table above). While claim 5 of Weisenberger ‘642 does not specifically recite direct carbonization, the term “direct carbonization” is broadly interpreted as carbonizing a material in an inert atmosphere, or a non-oxidizing environment. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that direct carbonization would not include an oxidizing step and that the limitation of without previous oxidation as recited in claim 5 of Weisenberger ‘642 includes direct carbonization.
Claim 5 of Weisenberger ‘642 recites all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except for converting PEDOT:PSS. However, Zhamu-1 teaches the benefits of using intrinsically conductive polymers, such as PEDOT:PSS ([0121] provides a list of conductive polymers that can be used to make polymer nanowires, which includes PEDOT:PSS), to create conductive polymer nanowires. More specifically, Zhamu-1 discloses that the carbonization and graphitization of a conductive polymer nanowire can increase the electrical conductivity of the resulting carbon nanowire ([0120]).
Therefore, while Zhamu-1 specifically teaches on nanowires rather than fibers, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the method in claim 5 of Weisenberger ‘642 by using PEDOT:PSS as the electrically conductive material, as taught by Zhamu-1, to potentially enhance the electrical conductivity of the resulting carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 2, claim 5 of Weisenberger ‘642 in view of Zhamu-1 recites the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, and claim 1 of Weisenberger ‘642, upon which claim 5 depends on, further recites a carbonization temperature between 900 ºC and 2000 ºC whereby the fibers are carbonized to carbon fibers (see Table above).
The range represented by claim 5 of Weisenberger ‘642 is broader than the instant application. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of 1000 ºC – 1700 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited co-pending application.
Regarding claim 6, claim 5 of Weisenberger ‘642 in view of Zhamu-1 recites the limitations of claim 1 of the present invention, and claim 1 of Weisenberger ‘642, upon which claim 5 depends on, further recites a carbonization temperature between 900 ºC and 2000 ºC whereby the fibers are carbonized to carbon fibers (see Table above).
The range represented by claim 5 of Weisenberger ‘642 is broader than the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of 1100 ºC – 1400 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhamu, et. al., 2021 (US 2021/0362471 A1), referred to as Zhamu-2 from herein, teaches of a method of preparing a graphitic layer, which includes carbonizing and graphitizing a polymer film where the carbonization and graphitization steps occur in non-oxidizing atmospheres (see Abstract and [0020]).
Bao, et. al (US 2015/0232340 A1) teaches a method of carbonizing a 3D polymer network where PEDOT:PSS can be used as one of the precursors in forming the 3D polymer network.
Sarabia-Riquelme, et. al. Effect of Drawing on the Electrical, Thermoelectrical, and Mechanical Properties of Wet-Spun PEDOT:PSS Fibers ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2019, 1, 2157-2167 teaches a method to fabricate high performance PEDOT:PSS fibers that may be utilized in electronic textile applications.
Kawahara, et. al. Direct Carbonization of High-performance Aromatic Polymers and the Production of Activated Carbon Fibers J. Textile Sci. Eng. 2015, 10000219 teaches direct carbonization of aromatic polymers, which includes advantages of obtaining carbon fibers via direct carbonization and using aromatic polymers as precursors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN F CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:00PM, Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/V.F.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights