DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pre-grant publication corresponding to the application: US 2025/0136453. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
The preliminary amendment dated 3/20/2024 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 16-30 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 16-30 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are acknowledged as cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
I. Failure To Show Reference Sign(s).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The Specification states: “FIG. 1a shows a portion of an apparatus 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention, which comprises a crucible 6 positioned in an area at least partially surrounding it, provided inside an airtight container 1.” (S. 4: [0105]). Other passages state Figure 1(b) shows crucible 6. (S. 5: [0109]). Figures 1(a)-1(b) do not show at least crucible 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
712
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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.
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.
I. Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 24 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by US 5,340,417 to Weimer, et al.
With respect to Claim 16, this claim requires “- producing a mixture comprising at least a carbon powder and a silica powder wherein the percentage by weight of carbon powder with respect to the total weight of the mixture, is at least about 25%.” Carbon powder is taught. (Weimer 7: 21 et seq.). Silica powder is taught. (Weimer 7: 15-20). The two are mixed. (Weimer 7: 53 et seq.m 12: 9-10)
in a carbon to silica mole ratio, as stated. (Weimer 7: 64 et seq.). The preferred ratio of 3 mol C/SiO2 (Weimer 7: 67) can be converted to a mass percentage as follows:
3 mol C × (12.01 g/mol1) = 36.03 g
1 mol SiO2 × (60.08 g/mol) = 60.08 g
Total mass = 36.03 g + 60.08 g = 96.11 g
Weight percentage carbon = 36.03 g / 96.11 = 0.3749 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 37% C
This reads on the claimed range. Note that the teachings are Weimer are broader, and other molar ratios would give rise to other weight percentages.
Claim 16 further requires “- placing said mixture in a crucible.” Crucible is interpreted broadly. The Specification states it can be tubular in shape. (S. 5: [0106]). Weimer teaches introducing the mixture into a tubular reactor, interpreted as a crucible. (Weimer 12: 53 et seq.; passim).
Claim 16 further requires “- creating a substantially inert atmosphere in an area at least partially surrounding the crucible.” Inert gasses are taught. (Weimer 12: 42-52).
Claim 16 further requires “- heating said crucible by a heating device for a first time interval until reaching a working temperature of at least 15000C and lower than a melting temperature of the silica powder comprised in the mixture.” The temperatures are taught. (Weimer 8: 18-22). Any length of time reads on this limitation.
Claim 16 further requires “- maintaining the crucible within a working temperature range between 15000C and the melting temperature of the silica powder comprised in the mixture for a second time interval.” The temperatures are taught. (Weimer 8: 18-22). Any length of time reads on this limitation.
Claim 16 further requires “- reducing the temperature of the crucible after said second time interval.” The product is cooled. (Weimer 8: 28-29).
Claim 16 further requires “said step of heating the crucible by the heating device, comprises heating the crucible at an average heating rate of at least 75°C/minute.” The heating rates are taught. (Weimer 8: 11-18).
As to Claim 17, the heating rates are taught. (Weimer 8: 11-18).
As to Claim 18, the crucible is heated. (Weimer 11: 3 et seq.) See above with respect to temperatures.
As to Claim 19, the dimensions are taught. (Weimer 9: 27-35).
As to Claim 20, the reactor with the sweep gas as described is interpreted as a hot-zone in an airtight container. (Weimer 12: 65 et seq.)
As to Claim 21, whatever mental steps Weimer went through to ““predetermine”” the pressures and temperatures are interpreted as ““substantially”” maintained (broad language). (Weimer, entire reference).
As to Claim 22, discharge and cooling is taught. (Weimer 13: 66 et seq.). Whatever pressures are taught are interpreted as ““predetermined.””
As to Claim 24, negative pressure is interpreted as drawing vacuum. (Weimer 13: 34-35).
II. Claim(s) 25-30 – or as stated below – is/are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,340,417 to Weimer, et al. in view of:
(i) Alphonsus, et al., A review on the applications of programmable logic controllers (PLCs), Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016; 60: 1185-1205 (hereinafter “Alphonsus at __”).
With respect to Claim 25, this claim requires “- a crucible configured to receive a mixture comprising at least a carbon powder and a silica powder wherein the percentage by weight of carbon powder with respect to the total weight of the mixture, is at least about 25%.” The carbon powder and silica powder language is a statement of the material worked on, and is not accorded patentable weight. MPEP 2115. As discussed above, what is interpreted as a crucible is taught. (Weimer 12: 53 et seq.; passim).
Claim 25 further requires “- inert atmosphere creating means configured to create an inert atmosphere in an area at least partially surrounding the crucible.” In view of (S. 6: [0122]), the “inert atmosphere creating means” are interpreted as some sort of vacuum and/or inert gas supply. Both are taught by Weimer. (Weimer 12: 42-52; 13: 34-35).
Claim 25 further requires “- a heating device configured to adjust the temperature of said crucible.” A heating device is taught. (Weimer 11: 3 et seq.).
Claim 25 further requires “- a programmable control unit configured to activate the inert atmosphere creating means to create an inert atmosphere in the area around the crucible.” As discussed above, Weimer teaches inert atmospheres. (Weimer 12: 42-52). Weimer would not appear to teach the control mechanism that introduces the inert gas / creates the inert environment. This difference is discussed below.
Claim 25 further requires “- a programmable control unit configured to … activate said heating device to heat said crucible for a first time interval until reaching a working temperature of at least 1500 °C and lower than a melting temperature of the silica powder comprised in the mixture, at an average heating rate of at least 75°C/minute and to maintain the crucible within a working temperature range between 1500°C and the melting temperature of the silica powder comprised in the mixture for a second time interval.” Weimer teaches that the temperature of the various reactors are independently controllable. (Weimer 6: 5-6). Weimer would not appear to teach the control mechanism controls the temperature. This difference is discussed below.
Claim 25 further requires “- a programmable control unit configured to … reduce the temperature of the crucible after said second time interval.” Weimer would not appear to teach the control mechanism controls the temperature. This difference is discussed below.
“The specification need not disclose what is well-known to those skilled in the art and preferably omits that which is well-known to those skilled and already available to the public.” MPEP 2164.05(a) (citations omitted). Weimer (i.e. Dow Chemical Company, no strangers to process control) omitted that which is well-known to those skilled and already available to the public: programmers or programmable control units. Alphonsus teaches programmable control units. (Alphonsus entire reference). Note the “Introduction” section, discussing some history of programmable logic controllers, dating back to the 1960s. These are the state of the art, and are widely used. (Alphonsus entire reference). One of skill in the art would be motivated to use programmable control units for any number of reasons, like those enumerated in the “Advantages of a PLC” section of Alphonsus. (Alphonsus at 1201, col. 2).
As to Claim 26, the heating rates are taught. (Weimer 8: 11-18).
As to Claim 27, refractory materials are taught. (Weimer 10: 54 et seq.).
As to Claim 28, the heating device is taught. (Weimer 11: 3 et seq.).
As to Claim 29, the very rapid heating (Weimer 8: 16: “100,000 C/sec”) and low resonance time (Weimer 9: 46: “0.2 sec”) suggests a uniform temperature profile.
As to Claim 30, Weimer teaches a diameter of 11.43 cm, bigger than claimed. (Weimer 16: 14-15). Changes in size do not impart patentability. MPEP 2144 IV. A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
1 Official notice is taken of the molecular weights to show a state of fact. Periodic table not included with the action, but readily available at: https://www.nist.gov/pml/periodic-table-elements, and elsewhere.
