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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A soaking device in claim 1. The corresponding structure for the soaking device is recited as a soaking tank (see page 4 paragraph 2).
A drying and curing device in claim 1. The corresponding structure for the drying and curing device is recited as a drying and curing oven (see page 4 paragraph 2).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A compression molding device in claim 4. The corresponding structure for the compression molding device is recited as a compressing mechanism which is recited as a hydraulic, electric or pneumatic mechanism (see page 14, last paragraph).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim Interpretation: The limitation “An anti-oxidation dipping treatment method for a graphite sealing element for a thermal power generation unit, comprising the following steps” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 114604869A), in view of Wang (CN 114725417 A – of record), in view of Kutsumizu et al. (US 2020/0165137 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Xu discloses a method of preparing an anti-oxidation graphite product to include the product being a flexible graphite useful as a sealing material, see page 15 paragraphs 7, 11 – (corresponds to the graphite sealing element is a flexible graphite sealing element). Xu further discloses the method includes a step of soaking/impregnating the graphite material and drying, see Example 2: 2.3 – (construed as S1: placing a graphite sheet into a soaking device for soaking). To the extent Xu does not explicitly disclose a specific soaking device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the use of a container as a soaking as claimed since: Xu explicitly discloses a step of soaking/impregnating the graphite within a solution under vacuum.
Xu does not explicitly disclose the curing device or the stacking and stamping steps.
Wang discloses a method for continuous preparation of graphite plates. The method to include steps of impregnating a graphite slab material; transferring the impregnated graphite slab to a drying and curing box, see page 18, S5 – (construed as S2: conveying the soaked graphite sheet into a drying and curing device for drying and curing); transferring the dried and cured graphite slab to a hot press for forming into a graphite plate, see page 18, S6 – (construed as S4:stamping the layered graphite body to form a finished graphite sealing element with a desired appearance). Wang discloses such steps contributes to a continuous preparation method of forming graphite plates with high efficiency, see at least page 17 Summary Of The Invention paragraph.
Kutsumizu discloses a method of producing the highly oriented graphite. The method to include stacking graphite layers of and applying a load to produce good adhesion between the layers, see at least [0043] – [0044] – (construed as S3: stacking the multiple dried and cured graphite sheets together, and subjecting same to compression molding to form a layered graphite body). Kutsumizu discloses such a method allows for highly oriented graphite including graphite layers that (i) have good adhesion to one another and (ii) are not excessively compressed, see [0044].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu’s method of preparing an anti-oxidation graphite product to include a steps of conveying the soaked graphite sheet into a drying and curing device for drying and curing; and stamping the layered graphite body to form a finished graphite sealing element with a desired appearance as reasonably suggested by Wang and a step of stacking the multiple dried and cured graphite sheets together, and subjecting same to compression molding to form a layered graphite body as reasonably suggested by Kutsumizu to provide Xu’s method with the aforementioned benefits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Claims 4-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record:
Xu teaches an anti-oxidation expanded graphite, its preparation method and use. This includes steps of soaking/impregnating the graphite material as well as drying thereof. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that Xu’s step of soaking would inherently include a soaking device. Likewise, Xu’s step of drying would inherently include a drying and curing device.
Wang teaches a method for continuous preparation of graphite plates. The method to include steps of impregnating a graphite slab material; transferring the impregnated graphite slab to a drying and curing box; transferring the dried and cured graphite slab to a hot press for forming into a graphite plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that Wang’s impregnation step would inherently include a soaking device as an impregnation container. Likewise, the drying and curing step would inherently include a device for performing the taught steps. Additionally, the transfer step would inherently include a mechanism for moving the graphite slab around the build area and the hot press would be readily understood to be a finished product machining device.
Kutsumizu discloses a method of producing the highly oriented graphite. The method to include stacking graphite layers of and applying a load to produce good adhesion between the layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that Kutsumizu’s stacking and compression step is indicative of using a compression molding device.
However, Xu, Wang and Kutsumizu fails to teach or reasonably suggest forming an anti-oxidation graphite production line to include the use of a thermal power generation unit, which uses a guide rail. Wherein the guide rail is disposed above soaking, drying/curing, compression molding and finished product machining devices. Further where the compression molding device contains a compressing mechanism mounted on the guide rail, a support stand for stacking the multiple dried and cured graphite sheets thereon, and a push mechanism which pushes the support stand to move to a position below the compressing mechanism. And where a stamping mold is slidably mounted on the guide rail, the guide rail being additionally, slidably connected with a material transfer device.
That is, the combination of Xu, Wang and Kutsumizu does not teach or reasonably suggest use of a guide rail which connects the devices in the claimed orientation. It being further noted that while the combination suggests use of soaking, drying/curing, compression molding, and finished product machining devices. The combination does not present a reasonable pathway to forming the production line with specifics such as the aforementioned guide rail nor use of a push mechanism which pushes the support stand to move to a position below the compressing mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749