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 .
Claims 30-33, 35, 36-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected specious II, III, and IV there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant’s election without traverse of species I in the reply filed on 06/01/26 is acknowledged.
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: means for in claim 6, 7 and 20.
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.
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.
Claim 29 is 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. the phrase "preferably a rotary valve" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes it is considered as an airlock valve.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, 16-18, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christopher Timmons et al (WO 2022035879, here after Timmons).
Claim 1 is rejected. Timmons teaches a continuous process for preparing composite particles[abstract], the process comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a chemical vapor infiltration unit comprising at least a first reaction zone;
(b) providing a feedstock(scaffold) comprising porous particles and continuously introducing the porous particles into the first reaction zone [page 23 last line to page 24 lines 1-3, page 26 lines 28-29 page 27 lines 1-2];
(c) continuously introducing a silicon precursor gas (process gas injector) into the first reaction zone [fig. 1, fig. 2];
(d) providing conditions in the reaction zone (within the tube) that are effective to cause deposition of silicon in the pores of the porous particles [page 24 line 29 to page 25 lines 1-3];
(e) continuously withdrawing composite particles comprising a porous particle framework and only silicon(elemental) within the pores of the porous particle framework from the first reaction zone (product discharge) [page 25 lines 4-7]; and
(f) continuously withdrawing an effluent gas from the first reaction zone (exhaust gas) [fig. 1, fig. 2].
Claim 2 is rejected. Timmons teaches the first reaction zone comprises a tubular reactor having a first end, a second end and a length, wherein the porous
particles are introduced via a particle inlet at the first end of the tubular reactor and wherein the composite particles are withdrawn via a particle outlet at the second end of the tubular reactor [example 1 lines 1-3, fig. 1, fig. 2].
Claim 3 is rejected as Timmons teaches the shape of the cross-section of the tubular reactor is selected from circular [example 1 lines 1-3].
Claim 4 is rejected. Timmons teaches the silicon precursor gas is introduced via an inlet (process gas injector) proximal to the first end of the tubular reactor and wherein the effluent gas is withdrawn via a gas discharge outlet (exhaust gas) proximal to the second end of the tubular reactor [fig. 1, fig. 2].
Claim 8 is rejected as Timmons teaches the conditions in the first reaction zone include a reaction temperature in the range from 350 to 450 °C [page 19 paragraph 3, page 25 first paragraph lines 11-12].
Claim 9 is rejected as Timmons teaches the conditions in the first reaction zone include a pressure in the range from 101-1010 Kpa [page 34 lines 11-12].
Claim 11 is rejected. Timmons teaches the conveyance rate of particles in tube is 0.01 m/h [page 31 paragraph 2 lines 1-3], and also teaches the length of the tube is 24-inch (0.61m), therefor the (mean) residence time of particles in the first reaction zone between introduction of porous particles into the first reaction zone in step (b) and withdrawal of composite particles from the first reaction zone in step (e) is 36 min.
Claim 12 is rejected. Timmons teaches the volume of the first zone is 2.7 liters [page 34 example 1 lines 1-3], which in fact is within 0.3-6 lithers based on paragraph 0040 lines 1-11 of published application.
Claim 13 is rejected as Timmons teaches the ratio of the feed rate of the silicon precursor gas(silane) to the first reaction zone (0.48 kg/hr), based on silane weight of 1.31 gr/lit) to the feed rate of the porous carbon particles (8.3 L/min) [page 42 paragraph 2] to the first reaction zone is 1.37 (based on grams of silicon in the silicon precursor gas per gram of porous carbon particles).
Claim 14 is rejected as Timmons teaches the tube comprising two sections [page 32 paragraph 2], therefore one of them act as pre-heating the feedstock comprising the porous particles in a pre-heating zone before introducing the pre-heated feedstock into the first reaction zone.
Claim 16 is rejected. Considering dividing the tube in two sections, we will have the chemical vapor infiltration unit comprises first and second reaction zones, wherein the first reaction zone is the reaction zone as defined in any of the preceding claims and wherein the process further comprises:
(g) continuously introducing into the second reaction zone the composite particles withdrawn from the first reaction zone in step (e);
(h) continuously introducing a silicon precursor gas into the second reaction zone;
(i) providing conditions in the second reaction zone that are effective to cause deposition of silicon in the pores of the porous particles;
(j) continuously withdrawing composite particles comprising a porous particle framework and elemental silicon within the pores of the porous particle framework from the second reaction zone; and
(k) continuously withdrawing an effluent gas from the second reaction zone (see claim 1 rejection for steps 1 to f limitation) [fig. 1, fig. 2].
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason claim 16 is rejected, the second reaction zone (second half or the tube) comprises a tubular reactor having a first end, a second end and a length, wherein the composite particles withdrawn from the first reaction zone (as the particles covey) are introduced into the first end of the tubular
reactor and wherein the composite particles are withdrawn from the second end of the tubular reaction zone [fig.1, fig.2].
Claim 18 is rejected, (i) the silicon precursor gas is introduced via an inlet proximal to the first end of the tubular reactor and wherein the effluent gas is withdrawn via a gas discharge outlet proximal to the second end of the tubular reactor [fig. 1, fig. 2].
Claim 34 is rejected. Timmons teaches the silicon precursor gas is selected from silane (SiH4), disilane (Si₂H₆), trisilane (Si₃H₈) methylsilane, dimethylsilane and chlorosilanes [page 33 last 2 lines-page 34 lines 1-6].
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.
Claims 5-6, 10, 14-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher Timmons et al (WO 2022035879, here after Timmons).
Claim 5 is rejected. Timmons teaches the silicon precursor gas is introduced via a plurality of inlets spaced apart along the length of the tubular reactor (injecting gas from both ends) [page 33 lines 24-26], and effluent gas is withdrawn via a gas discharge outlets from center of the reactor [page 32 lines 24-26]. Although Timmons does not teach the discharge outlets are plurality discharge outlets, however "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced"[MPSP 2144.04.VI.B]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Timmons where exhaust is plural (2) in center of tube (apart along the length of the tube), because duplication of parts has no patentable significance in absence of criticality.
Claim 6 is rejected. Timmons teaches the tubular reactor comprises means for conveying particles (vibration surface generator) from the first end to the second end thereof [page 26 lines 17-19, page 6 lines 1-6].
Claim 10 is rejected. Timmons teaches the limitation of claim 9, and teaches the conditions in the first reaction zone includes a pressure in the range from 101 to 1010 Kpa [page 34 lines 11-12]. Although Timmons does not teach pressure of 110 to 10000 kPa. However, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Timmons where the pressure in reaction zone is 110-1010 Kpa, because one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of overlapping range that corresponds to the claimed range with absence of criticality.
Claim 14 is rejected. Timmons does not clearly teach a pre-heating the feedstock comprising the porous particles in a pre-heating zone before introducing the pre-heated feedstock into the first reaction zone. However, Timmons teaches heating by applying hot air blowing to increase temperature to 400C [page 33 line 3, lines 11-12, page 40 line 8-12]. In another embodiment Timmons teaches heating (with resistive heater) to 450C [page 33-line 10 page 36 lines 13-14 fig. 2]. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form this composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069 1072. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Timmons where heating is done by hot air and resistive heating, because it helps the heating zone to be heated more effectively. A zone close to material feed inlet to the tube and prior to resistive heater considered as pre-heating zone [fig. 2].
Claim 15 is rejected as Timmons teaches the feedstock comprising the porous particles is heated by hot gases (pre-heated) to a temperature that is 400C, where the heated zone (first reaction zone heated by resistive heater, fig. 2) is 450C.
Claim 19 is rejected. Timmons teaches the silicon precursor gas is introduced via a plurality of inlets spaced apart along the length of the tubular reactor (injecting gas from both ends) [page 33 lines 24-26], and effluent gas is withdrawn via a gas discharge outlets from center of the reactor [page 32 lines 24-26]. Although Timmons does not teach the discharge outlets are plurality discharge outlets, however "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced"[MPSP 2144.04.VI.B]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Timmons where exhaust is plural (2) in center of tube (apart along the length of the tube), because duplication of parts has no patentable significance in absence of criticality.
Claims 7, and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher Timmons et al (WO 2022035879, here after Timmons), further in view of Yimin Zhu et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0019468, here after Zhu).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected. Timmons does not teach means for conveying particles from the first end to the second end of the tubular reactor comprises at least one auger. Zhu teaches depositing silicon on carbon-based powder in a rotating tubular furnace(reactor), and teaches using a rotating helix or auger to push the substrate powder forward from one end to another end [fig. 8, 0064]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Timmons where an auger located in tubular furnace, because it helps moving the carbon powder forward in the tubular furnace.
Claim 21 is rejected. Considering half of the reaction zone (hot zone) as the second zone, Timmons teaches the conditions in the reaction zone include a reaction temperature in the range from 350 to 450 °C [page 19 paragraph 3, page 25 first paragraph lines 11-12].
Claim 22 is rejected. Considering half of the reaction zone (hot zone) as the second zone, Timmons teaches the conditions in the reaction zone include a pressure in the range from 101-1010 Kpa [page 34 lines 11-12].
Claim 23 is rejected. Timmons teaches the conditions in the reaction zone includes a pressure in the range from 101 to 1010 Kpa [page 34 lines 11-12]. Although Timmons does not teach pressure of 110 to 10000 kPa. However, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Timmons where the pressure in reaction zone is 110-1010 Kpa, because one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of overlapping range that corresponds to the claimed range with absence of criticality.
Claim 24 is rejected, considering the first reaction zone slightly longer than the second one, the residence time of particles in first reaction zone is more than the second reaction zone.
Claim 24 is rejected. Timmons teaches heating by applying hot air blowing to increase temperature to 400C [page 33 line 3, lines 11-12, page 40 line 8-12]. In another embodiment Timmons teaches heating (with resistive heater) to 450C [page 33-line 10 page 36 lines 13-14 fig. 2]. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form this composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069 1072. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Timmons where heating is done by hot air and resistive heating, because it helps the heating zone to be heated more effectively. A zone close to material feed inlet of the tube (second end) and after to resistive heater considered as second zone [fig. 2].
Claim 25 is rejected as Timmons teaches the feedstock comprising the porous particles is heated by hot gases (pre-heated) to a temperature that is 400C, where the heated zone (first reaction zone heated by resistive heater, fig. 2) is 450C, therefore the second zone has 50-degree lower temperature than first one.
Claim 26 is rejected. Although Timmons does not teach the mean residence time of particles in the second reaction zone between introduction of composite particles into the second reaction zone in step (g) and withdrawal of composite particles from the second reaction zone is is from 2 to 60 minutes. However, travel time of particles in the tube obviously can be optimized by vibration frequency and amplitude of vibration generator, and slop of the tube [page 32 paragraph 2].
Claim 27 is rejected. Timmons teaches the volume of the tube is 2.7 liters [page 34 example 1 lines 1-3], which in fact is within 0.3-6 lithers based on paragraph 0040 lines 1-11 of published application, it is obvious to consider fraction of 2.7 liter as second zone volume within the claim range in absence of criticality.
Claim 28 is rejected. Timmons does not teach the ratio of the feed rate of the silicon gas precursor to the feed rate of the composite carbon particles (in the second reaction zone). However, this valve is result effective variable and has to be optimized. If the feed rate of the silicon gas compare to the feed rate of the composite carbon particles is very high, the silicon coating on carbon composite becomes very thick and it may block the pores. If the feed rate of the silicon gas compare to the feed rate of the composite carbon particles is very low, then there might not enough silicon deposited on carbon composite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Timmons where the ratio of the feed rate of the silicon gas compare to the feed rate of the composite carbon particles is within the claim range, because it is a result effective variable and has to be optimized.
Claim 29 is rejected. Although Timmons does not teach separating the zones with airlock valve, however Zhu teaches reaction zones can be separated by purge or curtains or any other means to fully isolate zones [0068], which in fact an airlock valve is well recognize by art to act as isolating zones in rectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Timmons and Zhu teach where the zones are separated by an airlock valve, because it is a well-known device for isolating zones in rectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights