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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/21/2026 is entered and fully considered.
The 112 rejections are removed.
The amendment to claim 3 resolves the 112 issue, but does not specify a processing temperature at which the melt viscosity is measured. Viscosity of pitch can drop significantly when heated. An additional reference (Wood et al. “Viscosity/temperature equations for coal tar pitches and refined tars” Sept. 1965) is provided to reject the amended claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the references do not teach keeping the coal tar pitch in a molten state. The MUTOH reference teaches mixing a particle with molten pitch but does not describe the source of the molten pitch. LEE teaches a molten pitch byproduct from petrochemical processes. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the molten pitch from LEE can be used in the MUTOH process. This substitution does not specifically state that the molten pitch is kept in molten state from the byproduct stream of LEE to the mixture of MUTOH. However, the byproduct stream in LEE is a molten pitch and the required ingredient in MUTOH is also molten pitch. The examiner is not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would manipulate the molten state of the pitch from the byproduct stream LEE to the feed stream MUTOH as asserted by applicant. LEE teaches a molten pitch byproduct stream and MUTOH requires a molten pitch feed stream.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected because it is a duplicate of independent claims 14 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUTOH et al. (US 2016/0181602) in view of LEE et al. (US 2012/0301816).
Regarding claim 1,
MUTOH teaches a method of making a carbon coated particle by providing a particle and mixing with molten pitch abstract. The pitch can be in melt form before mixing [0044]. When the molten pitch and particles are melted, the pitch (intermediate pitch) is “dispersed” on the surface of the particles without solidification, dissolving or remelting. The coated particles are fired in a carbonization treatment [0121].
The reference does not expressly teach the source of molten pitch as being freshly made and in a still molten state. However, LEE teaches using molten pitch that is a byproduct from petrochemical industries as the starter material for a carbon thin film [0078]. By using the byproduct molten pitch, the process is environmentally friendly because it recycles the byproduct stream of molten pitch.
Regarding claim 2,
MUTOH teaches solidification after mixing the pitch and fine particles to make Mixture 1. However, the reference does not teach solidification, dissolution or remelting between the mixing of molten pitch (intermediate pitch) and particles. Mixing results in the dispersion of pitch on particles.
Regarding claim 5,
MUTOH teaches sourcing the pitch from petroleum sources or coal tar distillate [0065]. LEE also teaches directly recycling a pitch stream from petrochemicals [0078].
Regarding claim 7,
MUTOH teaches sourcing the pitch from petroleum sources or coal tar distillate [0065]. MUTOH teaches the softening point is measured by Mettler and is 80-300°C [0067]-[0068]. The prior art range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. The softening point also overlaps the softening points described in the coal tar pitch in LEE [0143] and [0148].
Regarding claim 9,
The language in claim 9 does not positively require “the pitch” to be used in the intermediate pitch product of claim 7. “The pitch” is referring to the petroleum-based pitch used with the blend of distillation residue. Accordingly, when using a petroleum-based distillation residue (such as distillate in MUTOH) without a “pitch” the limitations of the softening point are never positively required.
Regarding claim 10,
MUTOH teaches the mixing of particle and pitch can also cause pulverization [0047]. The pulverizing during mixing is considered “intensive mixing”.
Regarding claim 11,
MUTOH teaches the carbonizing can be done in inert atmosphere at 800-1200°C [0123] which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12,
MUTOH teaches the amount of pitch used in the coating is 0.05 to 40 parts by mass per 100 parts of particle [0103]. The coated particles also form aggregates that are broken apart by the pulverization [0104].
Regarding claim 15,
MUTOH teaches a method of making a carbon coated particle by providing a particle and mixing with molten pitch abstract. The pitch can be melted before mixing [0044]. When the molten pitch and particles are melted, the pitch (intermediate pitch) is “dispersed” on the surface of the particles without solidification, dissolving or remelting. The coated particles are fired in a carbonization treatment [0121].
The reference does not expressly teach the source of molten pitch as being freshly made and in a still molten state. However, LEE teaches using molten pitch that is a byproduct from petrochemical industries as the starter material for a carbon thin film [0078]. By using the byproduct molten pitch, the process is environmentally friendly because it recycles the byproduct stream of molten pitch.
MUTOH teaches sourcing the pitch from petroleum sources or coal tar distillate (or blend thereof) [0065]. MUTOH teaches the softening point is measured by Mettler and is 80-300°C [0067]-[0068]. The prior art range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. The softening point also overlaps the softening points described in the coal tar pitch in LEE [0143] and [0148]. Both the blend and constituent pitch can have a Mettler softening point within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUTOH et al. (US 2016/0181602) in view of LEE et al. (US 2012/0301816) further in view of WOOD et al. “Viscosity/temperature equations for coal tar pitches and refined tars” (Sept. 1965).
Regarding claim 3,
MUTOH teaches a method of making a carbon coated particle by providing a particle and mixing with molten pitch. MUTOH teaches the softening point is measured by Mettler and is 80-300°C [0067]-[0068]. The reference does not expressly teach the viscosity of the melt. However, the examiner notes that the claim states that the viscosity is measured at “a processing temperature” without specifying what process is being performed. Accordingly, the claim can be met by showing the molten pitch has the claimed viscosity at any temperature.
WOOD teaches the viscosity of coal tar pitch depends on the temperature introduction and more specifically teaches the range of viscosities for ordinary coal tar pitches Table 1. All of the viscosities overlap the claimed range over the measured temperature ranges of Table 1. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that the molten pitch of MUTOH has a “processing temperature” that satisfies the claimed viscosity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowed. However, note the claim is a duplicate of claim 8 which needs to be resolved.
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 13 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.
Regarding claim 4,
The examiner could not find prior art teaching the claimed coke value, flash point and quinoline insoluble matter in the intermediate pitch.
Regarding claim 6,
MUTOH teaches the softening point is measured by Mettler and is 80-300°C [0067]-[0068]. However, the claim further requires a flash point above 250°C. The examiner notes that coal tar pitch typically has a high flash point in that range. However, the references do not expressly, implicitly or inherently teach using a pitch with the claimed flash point.
Regarding claim 8,
The examiner could not find prior art teaching a blend of distillate residue with the claimed Mettler softening point and coking value.
Regarding claim 13,
The MUTOH reference teaches taking the produced coated particles and making an electrode paste that includes a binder that can be formed [0136]. However, the examiner was unable to motivate an addition graphitizing step. In fact the reference teaches using ionically conductive binders, indicating the binder is a functional part of the anode without being turned into graphite.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712