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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph (the abstract of the present invention currently has two paragraphs) on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is further objected to because of the following informality:
Lines 1 – 2: the word “and” should be deleted and a comma should be added after “material;” “using carbon dioxide as a raw material and which enables the graphite particles” should read as “using carbon dioxide as a raw material, which enables the graphite particles”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0009]: the word “and” should be deleted and a comma should be added after “material;” “using carbon dioxide as a raw material and which enables the graphite particles” should read as “using carbon dioxide as a raw material, which enables the graphite particles”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the step of preparing [labeled as (a)], should be indented. Claims that set forth a plurality of elements or steps should have each element be separated by a line of indentation. See MPEP § 608.01(m)
Claim 3 is objected to because the comma after “wherein” (line 2) should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 5 are 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 1 recites the limitation “in a vicinity of a surface of the electrolytic bath outside of the electrolytic bath” in lines 4 – 5. The term “in a vicinity of” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear where the cathode should be located in terms of distance and position with respect to the electrolytic bath is considered as being “in the vicinity of the surface of the electrolytic bath.” The term “in a vicinity of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-5 depend upon or otherwise require all of the limitations of claim 1 and are also similarly rejected.
Claim 3 recites a limitation of “a temperature immediately beneath a cathode in a vicinity of a surface of the electrolytic bath” in lines 2 – 3. The term “in a vicinity of” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders claim 3 as indefinite, similar to claim 1.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappleye, et. al. 2020 (US 2020/0232106 A1), referred to as Rappleye from herein, in view of Ito, et. al. 2012 (WO 2012060208 A1; examiner added page numbers to the machine translation for easier referencing), referred to as Ito-1 from herein, and in further view of Ito, et. al. 2005 (WO 2005/111272 A1), referred to as Ito-2 from herein.
Regarding claim 1, Rappleye teaches of a method for manufacturing graphite particles (step 210 in Fig. 2 mentions obtaining the carbon product; [0063] specifically states “ the carbon product 112 may be removed 114 from the cathode 104 as graphite”) comprising:
a step of preparing an electrolytic bath which includes molten salt containing carbonate ions ([0005] describes the molten salt bath, which includes CaCO3; [0059] specifically mentions the presence of carbonate ions)
a step of locating an anode in the electrolytic bath (see Fig. 1 where the anode is labeled as 106)
a step of reducing the carbonate ions and performing energization by applying a voltage for generating carbon particles between the anode and the cathode ([0058] – [0059] describes applying a voltage between the cathode and anode to reduce the calcium carbonate salt to allow the carbon product to form);
a step of collecting the carbon particles ([0063] – [0064] describes collecting the formed carbon product where [0063] specifically mentions obtaining the carbon product by scraping the electrode or soaking the electrode in solvent)
a step of graphitizing the carbon particles obtained in the step of collecting by heat treatment ([0052] describes the furnace surrounding the electrochemical cell creates the molten salt mixture by melting the selected salts and allows the carbon to form at the cathode)
Rappleye does not teach of a step of locating a cathode in the vicinity of a surface of the electrolytic bath outside the electrolytic bath and generating electric discharge between the cathode and the surface of the electrolytic bath in the step of reducing carbonate ions. Additionally, while Rappleye teaches a step of collecting carbon particles, Rappleye does not specifically teach collecting the carbon particles with the molten salt nor removing the cooled and solidified salt by water washing.
Regarding the location of the cathode, Ito-1 teaches a device for molten salt electrolysis where the cathode is located in a vicinity of a surface of the electrolytic bath outside of the electrolytic bath (Fig. 1 shows the cathode, labeled as 22, above the molten salt bath; Page 22, lines 10 - 19 describes the cathode as being near the electrolytic bath above the surface of the electrolytic bath) and the anode is located in the electrolytic bath (Fig. 1. shows the anode, labeled as 21, in the electrolytic bath; Page 22, lines 10 - 19 describes the anode as in the electrolytic bath). Ito-1 further teaches generating electric discharge between the cathode and the solvent (Page 22, lines 10 -19 describes voltage applied between the cathode and the surface of the bath).
Additionally, Ito-2 teaches a device for molten salt electrolysis that is substantially similar to the device employed in Ito-1 and in the present invention where the cathode is located in the vicinity of the electrolytic bath (Fig. 1 shows the cathode, labeled as 8, above the molten salt bath; [0031] describes the cathode as being near the electrolytic bath without submerging the cathode into the molten salt bath) and the anode is located in the electrolytic bath (Fig. 1. shows the anode, labeled as 9, immersed in the electrolytic bath; [0029] describes the anode as immersed or partially immersed in the electrolytic bath). Ito-2 further discloses that installing the cathode above the bath rather than immersed in the bath allows the particles to form in the molten salt bath rather than on the cathode surface (see [0031]), which leads to the formation of smaller particles that are on the nanometer scale (see [0038] – [0039]; describes that particles as small as several nanometers may be achieved if formed in the solvent due to atomic collisions between the metal cations and the alkali metal cation ions).
Rappleye, Ito-1, and Ito-2 are analogous to the present invention as Rappleye is in the same field of producing carbon products via molten salt electrolysis while Ito-1 and Ito-2 are in the general field of using molten salt electrolysis to produce particles.
While Ito-1 teaches a method for producing metal particles rather than carbon particles, the locations of both the anode and cathodes are similar to the present invention and operate in a similar manner and function. Due to the substantial similarities between Ito-1 and the present invention, the locations of the anode and cathode disclosed in Ito-1 would necessarily be able to produce both metal particles, as demonstrated in Ito-1, as well as the carbon particles of the present invention. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Furthermore, since Ito-2 teaches a method for producing metal particles in a similar manner and function as both Ito-1 and of the present invention, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Rappleye by locating the cathode in the vicinity of the surface of the electrolytic bath as demonstrated and taught by Ito-1 to prepare carbon particles on the nanometer scale as taught by Ito-2. One of ordinary skill in would reasonably expect successful results if the method of Rappleye is modified by the placement of the cathode as demonstrated by Ito-1.
Regarding collecting the carbon particles with the molten salt and removing the cooled and solidified salt by water washing, Ito-1 further teaches collecting the particles by washing the cooled and solidified salt with water (Page 26, lines 8 – 10 specifically states “the particles formed in the bath were collected together with the salt, and the cooled and solidified salt was removed by washing with water”). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Rappleye by collecting the carbon particles with the molten salt and removing the cooled and solidified salt by water washing by Ito-1 in order to only obtain the final carbon particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect successful results as demonstrated by Ito-1.
Regarding claim 2, Rappleye in view of Ito-1 and in further view of Ito-2 teaches a method of manufacturing graphite particles according to claim 1, and Rappleye further teaches wherein the step of preparing the electrolytic bath which includes the molten salt containing the carbonate ions, labeled as step (a), is performed by injecting carbon dioxide gas into the electrolytic bath (Fig. 1 shows CO2, labeled as 110, being injected into the bath through an inlet, labeled as 109, and Fig. 2 shows feeding CO2 into the molten salt mixture as step 204) which includes the molten salt containing the oxide ions ([0005] describes the composition of the molten salt bath, which includes CaO; see also Fig. 2, step 204).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappleye in view of Ito-1 and in further view of Ito-2 as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Marsh, et. al. 2006 (Production and Reference Material. Activated Carbon Elsevier, 2006; pp. 454 – 508), referred to as Marsh from herein.
Regarding claim 3, Rappleye in view of Ito-1 and in further view of Ito-2 teaches a method for manufacturing graphite particles according to claim 1, and Marsh teaches a general temperature range of 2226.85 – 3026.85 ºC for graphitizing carbon via heating (see the definition of “Graphitization Heat Treatment” on Page 489 where 2500 K is equivalent to 2226.85 ºC and 3300 K is equivalent to 3026.13 ºC). Marsh further defines the general term “graphitization” as the transformation of non-graphitic carbon into graphite by means of a heat treatment (see the definition of “Graphitization” on Page 488). Additionally, the specification discloses that the selected temperature of 3000 ºC for the electrolytic bath immediately beneath the cathode is to form carbon particles that have interplanar spacing close to that of graphite (see [0044] in the specification of present invention), suggesting that present invention is graphitizing the carbon particles using a similar technique as defined by Marsh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a temperature of 2226.85 – 3026.85 ºC is a typical range for generating graphite, as taught by Marsh. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rappleye in view of Ito-1 and in further view of Ito-2 using a temperature range of 2226.85 – 3026.85 ºC for the temperature immediately beneath a cathode in the vicinity of a surface of the electrolytic bath as taught by Marsh to ensure that the obtained carbon particles are completely transformed into graphite particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would also reasonably expect successful results.
The range represented by Marsh 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 value of 3000 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the value of the cited prior art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappleye in view of Ito-1 and in further view of Ito-2 as applied in claim 1 and in further view of Kaplan.
Regarding claim 5, Rappleye in view of Ito-1 and in further view of Ito-2 teaches a method for manufacturing graphite particles according to claim 1, and Kaplan teaches a method for manufacturing graphite particles comprising similar steps as the claimed invention including preparing an electrolytic bath which includes molten salt containing carbonate ions (see Section titled “Experimental” on pages D72 – D74 where the eutectic mixture contains three kinds of alkali carbonate salts), locating an anode in the electrolytic bath (see Figure 1 where the anode is labeled as the “counter-electrode”) and reducing the carbonate ions by applying a voltage for generating carbon particles between the anode and cathode (Section titled “Mechanism of carbon deposit in fused alkali carbonate” on Page D74 describes the reduction and oxidation reactions that occur, including the reduction of carbonate ions to carbon). Kaplan further characterizes the graphite particles manufactured by the disclosed method, including the shape of the carbon particles. More specifically, Kaplan teaches the carbon particles as having a quasi-spherical shape (Fig. 3 shows an SEM of sample 3; Section title “Structural characterization by SEM” on Page D75 specifically uses the term “quasi-spherical” to describe the shape of the graphite particles).
Kaplan is analogous to the claimed invention as they are both in the field of preparing carbon materials using molten salt electrolysis.
While Kaplan does not specifically use the term “spherical shape” to describe the shape of the carbon particles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “quasi-spherical” particles are substantially identical to spherical shape particles. Therefore, it would be obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rappleye in view of Ito-1 and in view of Ito-2 with the particle shapes taught by Kaplan. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to observe the quasi-spherical carbon particles as taught and demonstrated by Kaplan when performing the method of Rappleye in view of Ito-1 and Ito-2.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kakazu, et. al. 1994 (JP H0688291 A), referred to as Kakazu from herein, teaches producing a carbonaceous composite material using molten salt electrolysis where carbonate ions in the electrolytic bath are reduced. Kakazu also teaches graphitizing the carbon material and injecting carbon dioxide into the electrolytic bath.
Ren, et. al. 2015 (One-Pot Synthesis of Carbon Nanofibers from CO2. Nano Letters 2015, 15, 6142 – 6148) provides more details on the molten salt electrolysis synthesis performed by Licht.
Ijije, et. al. 2014 (Carbon Electrodeposition in Molten Salts: Electrode Reactions and Applications. RSC Advances 2014, 4(67), 35808 – 35817) is a review article covering work on synthesizing carbon-based materials using molten salt electrolysis.
Deng, et. al. 2017 (Microbubble Effect-Assisted Electrolytic Synthesis of Hollow Carbon Spheres from CO2. Journal of Material Chemistry A 2017, 5, 12822 – 12827) teaches a method of synthesizing hollow carbon spheres by the electrolytic conversion of CO2 in a molten salt electrolyte.
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