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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 last line recited “CMB” appears to be “MCMB”. 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 1-13 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. In this case, claim 1 recites “pre-treating raw pitch”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what specific treatment can be considered as “pre-treating” since no specific treatment conditions are recited as to how the pretreatment is performed, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed “pre-treating”. Next claim 1 recites “post-processing the mesophase pitch”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what specific treatment can be considered as “post-processing”, since no specific treatment conditions are recited as to how the “post-processing” is performed, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed “post-processing”. All claim 1’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 3 and 9 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. In this case, claim 3 and 9 respectively recite “homogenize dried raw pitch”, but independent claim 1 or claim 9’s parent claim 2 does not recite raw pitch being dried at all. Therefore, such recited “dried raw pitch” appears lack of antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (effects of AlCl3-NaCl content on the formation of mesocarbon microbeads, International Journal of Chemical reactor engineering, 2010, vol 8 Note S7, pp.1-12) in view of Kawakubo (US5096519).
Cheng et al. teaches a process of forming mesophase carbon microbeads (MCMB) comprising using coal tar pitch (CTP) as raw material, wherein toluene soluble, toluene insoluble and pyridine insoluble fraction of pitch were obtained with Soxhlet extraction (i.e. pretreating raw pitch), CTP and MSM were ground ( i.e. pulverized) to mix forming a mixture comprising MSM and CTP, heating the mixture at 300 °C for 1 hour to pyrolyze and polymerize the mixture obtaining mesophase pitch (section 2.1-secdtion 2.2, table 1, then cooling the heated mixture and removing the salt via washing with 5% dilute hydrochloric acid and followed by washing with distilled water, extracting the residue via Soxhlet extraction with pyridine ( a solvent extraction method), then the isolated product is being dried in a vacuum atmosphere to obtain MCMB (section 2.3, section 3.4, Fig. 1-4, section 4).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng et al. does not expressly teach stirring the mixture of the CTP and MSM, or stirring during heating.
However, it is well-known in the art that stirring can be used to mixing carbon precursor material with a molten salt mixture, then heating such mixture obtaining mesophase pitch (i.e. mesophase carbon) or isotropic pitch (col. 2 lines 42-51, col. 4 lines 35-47, col. 5 lines 8-13, 40-45).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such stirring to practice the mixing of CTP and MSM, or stirring the mixture CTP and MSM during heating because adopting such well-known mixing for help obtaining a homogenous mixture of CTP and MSM for desired mixing and reaction to form mesophase carbon for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 4-5, Cheng et al. further teaches the salt being a mixture of AlCl3 and NaCl (noted both AlCl3 and NaCl are water soluble) having a molar ratio of AlCl3/ NaCl=3:2 (section 2.1).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng et al. also discloses the mixing ratio of MSM to CTP can be from 0.1/1, 0.2/1, 1/1, 2/1 and 5/1 (section 2.2), wherein when the mixing ratio of MSM/CTP being 5/1, there is 16.7% by weight of CTP and 83.3% by weight of the MSM. Cheng et al shows that change of ratio of MSM to CTP affecting the obtained product features, such as MCMB morphology, structure etc. (section 3.2-section 3.5, Fig. 2-4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a same mixing ratio of the raw pitch and the metal chloride salt via routine optimization (see MPEP 2144. 05 II) for help obtaining desired MCMB product.
Regarding claim 7-8 and 10-13, Cheng et al. already teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (effects of AlCl3-NaCl content on the formation of mesocarbon microbeads, International Journal of Chemical reactor engineering, 2010, vol 8 Note S7, pp.1-12) in view of Kawakubo (US5096519) as applied above, and further in view of Tsuchitani (EP0299222).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng et al. in view of Kawakubo does not expressly teach the raw pitch being isotropic pitch with softening point of 150 or 115 °C.
Tsuchitani teaches using an isotropic pitch having softening point of 100-200 °C to prepare a mesophase pitch thus obtaining carbon fiber.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known isotropic pitch having softening point of 100-200 °C as shown by Tsuchitani to practice the raw pitch of mesophase carbon producing process of Cheng et al in view of Kawakubo because adopting such well-known technique of isotropic pitch having softening point of 100-200 °C to modify a well-known mesophase carbon microsphere (MCMB) producing process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (effects of AlCl3-NaCl content on the formation of mesocarbon microbeads, International Journal of Chemical reactor engineering, 2010, vol 8 Note S7, pp.1-12) in view of Kawakubo (US5096519) as applied above, and further in view of Yumitate (JPS62112689).
Cheng et al. already teaches CTP (pitch) being extracted before use and the pretreated CTP being ground (i.e. being homogenized). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt conventional oven to dry the raw pitch to remove remaining solvent and/or moisture after pre-treatment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt well-known grinding to homogenize the raw pitch material into desired particle size. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt conventional oven to dry the homogenized raw pitch to remove undesired moisture.
Regarding claim 3, Cheng et al. in view of Kawakubo does not expressly teach the pitch particle size being 106 µm or less.
Yumitate teaches an obtained pitch having particle size of 50-200 µm (page 4 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known particle size of 50-200 µm pitch as shown by Yumitate to practice the pitch of Cheng et al in view of Kawakubo because adopting such well-known technique of pitch having particle size of 50-200 µm to modify a well-known mesophase carbon microsphere (MCMB) producing process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (effects of AlCl3-NaCl content on the formation of mesocarbon microbeads, International Journal of Chemical reactor engineering, 2010, vol 8 Note S7, pp.1-12) in view of Kawakubo (US5096519) and Tsuchitani (EP0299222) as applied above, and further in view of Yumitate (JPS62112689).
Cheng et al. already teaches CTP (pitch) being extracted before use and the pretreated CTP being ground (i.e. being homogenized). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt conventional oven to dry the raw pitch to remove remaining solvent and/or moisture after pre-treatment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt well-known grinding to homogenize the raw pitch material into desired particle size. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt conventional oven to dry the homogenized raw pitch to remove undesired moisture.
Regarding claim 9, Cheng et al. in view of Kawakubo and Tsuchitani does not expressly teach the pitch particle size being 106 µm or less.
Yumitate teaches an obtained pitch having particle size of 50-200 µm (page 4 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known particle size of 50-200 µm pitch as shown by Yumitate to practice the pitch of Cheng et al in view of Kawakubo and Tsuchitani because adopting such well-known technique of pitch having particle size of 50-200 µm to modify a well-known mesophase carbon microsphere (MCMB) producing process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights