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 .
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(s) 1, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 106746812).
Chen describes a method of processing palm leaf (title). The process includes drying the palm leaf, followed by crushing the palm leaf and then heating it at a lower temperature followed by heating it at an elevated carbonizing temperature (see example 2).
Chen does not specifically state that the product made is a body-centered tetragonal carbon, but since the process of making with the same compounds are the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same product is made.
Although the pulverizing step is performed prior to pre-carbonizing, the MPEP has stated that it would be obvious to change the order of performing a process in the absence of new or unexpected results. See: Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959, that states: “Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). That is, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) see MPEP §2144.04.
As to Claim 6, Chen teaches crushing the palms with a crusher (see “preferred embodiment”, para. 1). Although Chen does not state crushing the palm manually. The courts have held that it is obvious to automate a manual activity (see MPEP section 2144.04 and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manually process an automated process, such as breaking down palm leaves.
As to Claim 7, Chen teaches crushing the palms with a crusher (see “preferred embodiment”, para. 1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teixeira (BR 102021019835).
Chen teaches drying the palm leaves (example 1), but does not teach first sun drying and then oven drying.
Teixeira describes method of drying organic compounds (para. 110). In their process, Tiexeira explains that organic matter, such as palm leaves (para. 110) can be damp after being collected can be dried by first exposing the matter to the sun or oven (see para. 112).
Although Tiexeira does not teach drying by the sun, followed by drying in the oven, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that some leaves that have fallen or are earlier cut down are naturally dried by the sun.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further dry palm leaves that include some partially or entirely dried by the sun with an oven, as taught by Tiexeira for use with Chen because Tiexiera explains that the palm leaves are after collection of the cut leaves, some of them may be damp.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Tiexiera as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Al-Saqoufi (US Pat.: 11760812).
Al-Saquoufi teaches drying palm fronds (col. 3, lines 40-45) in the sun for 12 days (col. 3, lines 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sun dry the palm leaves for 12 days, as taught by Al-Saquoufi for use with the drying process of Chen and Tiexiera because this amount of drying time is known to be effective and would lead to predictable and expected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Chen teaches drying at 50 degrees C (see examples 1 and 2), but does not teach a higher drying temperature.
Similarly, Chen does not teach pre-carbonizing at a temperature of at least 250 degrees C for 2 hrs or more.
As to Claim 8, Chen does not teach carbonizing under the conditions described in Claim 8, such as under nitrogen flow at 450 degrees C or more for at least 2 hours.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights