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 § 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 12-21 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.
Regarding claim 12: this claim contains the trademark/trade name Teflon in line 8. 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 what the mold is of and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claims 13-21 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 12.
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.
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.
Claims 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hucke (GB 1415089; made of record in the IDS filed 04/26/2024, citations taken from the translated copy filed 04/26/2024) in view of Tamburini et al. (WO 2018/196965; made of record in the IDS filed 05/08/2024; citations taken from the translated copy filed 05/08/2024).
As to claim 12: Hucke discloses the claimed method for producing carbonized or graphitized 3D objects (Hucke at Claim 1; Claim 20), comprising:
mixing a carbonizable or graphitizable material comprising one or more of carbon black, graphite powder, natural graphite, pulp, and corn starch (i.e., solid carbonaceous materials are particularly useful in the process; the additions of high carbon yielding substances to the blend, such as carbon blacks, graphite and starches, can be used to increase the overall carbon yield) (Hucke at page 17, lines 55-57 and lines 91-115; Claim 1; Claim 20) with a free-flowing organic adhesive or a free-flowing thermoplastic organic material (i.e., many organic binders suitable for the process are liquid resins) (Hucke at page 14, lines 59-67 and lines 97-119; Claim 1) to form a compound that is kneadable and dimensionally stable (i.e., the initial step is blending the liquid resins and solid carbonaceous materials to form a homogenous fluid so that the mixture can flow into a mold cavity) (Hucke at page 19, lines 16-25; Claim 1); and
shaping the compound to form a 3D blank by hand with a template, or by molding in a mold made of Teflon or silicone and removing the 3D blank from the mold (i.e., the free flowing liquid is cast to shape by placing it in a container capable of retaining all of the fluid mix; the mold being made from silicone) (Hucke at page 20, lines 75-88; Claim 1); and
subsequently carbonizing or graphitizing the 3D molding by heat treatment in a furnace under a protective gas atmosphere and thereby producing a 3D object (i.e., pyrolysis step where the consolidated body is treated under specified conditions of time, temperature, pressure, and environment to bring about a decomposition of the solids in the body and thereby increase the percentage of carbon in the body) (Hucke at page 22, lines 112-130; page 23, lines 1-5; Claim 1; Claim 20), wherein a target temperature for the carbonizing or graphitizing is approached with a heating ramp of 1 0C/min and then maintained during the heat treatment (Hucke at page 23, lines 1-5; Claim 1).
Hucke fails to explicitly disclose the claimed shaping the compound followed by drying and outgassing the 3D blank at room temperature or at a maximum of 100 0C for conversion into a 3D molding; followed by stabilizing and homogenizing the 3D molding at a temperature between 140 oC and 450 oC in air.
However, Tamburini teaches a method for manufacturing ceramic object, preferably the ceramic object being a carbide-based ceramic object (Tamburini at page 2, lines 18-29). Tamburini further teaches a drying step providing the solvent removal (i.e., drying and outgassing the 3D blank at room temperature or at a maximum of 100 0C for conversion into a 3D molding) and the method also including a stabilization process performed in air at a temperature between about 160 oC to about 250 oC (i.e., followed by stabilizing and homogenizing the 3D molding at a temperature between 140 oC and 450 oC in air) (Tamburini at page 3, lines 15-19; page 8, lines 11-28; FIG. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the drying/outgassing and stabilizing/homogenizing steps as such is known in the art of carbonized-based object production given the discussion of Tamburini above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 14: Hucke and Tamburini disclose the method of claim 12. Huck, modified by Tamburini, further disclose the claimed wherein the stabilizing and homogenizing the 3D molding is performed while heating up the furnace (Tamburini at page 3, lines 15-19; page 8, lines 11-28; FIG. 1), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 12.
As to claim 15: Hucke and Tamburini disclose the method of claim 12. Huck further discloses the claimed wherein the carbonizing or graphitizing the 3D molding is performed under reduced pressure or protective gas to form the 3D object at a constant temperature of 1000°C until pure carbon of a different crystal structure is formed (Hucke at page 23, lines 1-5; Claim 1; Claim 20).
As to claim 16: Hucke and Tamburini disclose the method of claim 12. Huck further discloses the claimed wherein the carbonizing or graphitizing the 3D molding is performed in the furnace under reduced pressure or protective gas to form the 3D object at a constant temperature of above 2000 °C (Hucke at page 22, lines 126-130; page 23, line 1-5; Claim 1; Claim 20).
As to claim 17: Hucke and Tamburini disclose the method of claim 12. Huck further discloses the claimed wherein the carbonizing or graphitizing the 3D molding is performed in the furnace under reduced pressure or protective gas to form the 3D object at a temperature of over 2500 °C (Hucke at page 22, lines 126-130; Claim 1; Claim 20).
As to claim 18: Hucke and Tamburini disclose the method of claim 12. Huck further discloses the claimed wherein the protective gas atmosphere consists of argon or helium (Hucke at Page 23, lines 1-5; Claim 1).
As to claim 19: Hucke and Tamburini disclose the method of claim 17. Huck further discloses the claimed wherein the carbonizing or graphitizing the 3D molding is graphitizing the 3D molding, and wherein a duration of the heat treatment is longer than 30 minutes (Hucke at page 23, lines 71-74; Claim 1; Claim 20).
As to claim 20: Hucke and Tamburini disclose the method of claim 12. Huck further discloses the claimed method further comprising: adding a metal powder or silicon powder to the compound, wherein the target temperature is > 1000 oC, whereby the 3D object consists of metal carbides or silicon carbides (Hucke at page 17, lines 55-68; page 23, lines 1-5).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hucke and Tamburini as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Vasterling (US 3,927,157).
As to claim 13: Hucke and Tamburini disclose the method of claim 12. Hucke, modified by Tamburini, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed method further comprising adding bamboo, cotton, hemp, sisal, or graphite fibers to the carbonizable or graphitizable material while maintaining kneadability.
However, Vasterling teaches methods for preparing improved graphitized fibrous reinforcement materials, and such products themselves (Vasterling at column 3, lines 48-50). Vasterling further teaches incorporating graphitized rayon fibers in the molding composition (Vasterling at column 7, lines 45-47).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further incorporate graphite fibers to the carbonizable or graphitizable material while maintaining kneadability as such is known in the art of graphitized object/product formation given the discussion of Vasterling above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of graphite fibers being especially preferred where improved strength characteristics are important (as recognized by Vasterling at column 7, lines 47-49).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hucke and Tamburini as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yoshiaki et al. (JP 2007145665; made of record in the IDS filed 04/26/2024, citations taken from the translated version provided herewith).
As to claim 21: Hucke and Tamburini disclose the method of claim 12. Hucke, modified by Tamburini, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed method further comprising converting the 3D object after graphitizing into a 3D object made of SiC in the furnace or a further furnace at a temperature of >1200 °C with supply of gaseous SiO with argon as carrier gas at a pressure of 30 mbar.
However, Yoshiaki teaches a manufacturing method of producing a porous SiC sintered body containing silicon carbide and carbon, and containing SiO gas permeating into a molded body by generating SiO gas via heating SiO2- in a reducing atmosphere (Yoshiaki at [0005], [0009], [0010]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the permeation of SiO gas into a sintered body to form an object made of SiC in the furnace as such is known in the art of carbonized object production given the discussion of Yoshiaki above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights