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 .
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.
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(s) 1, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dal et al (cn112350726).
The Dal et al reference teaches a method of purifying graphite, note entire reference. A graphite material, crucible is placed in a heating furnace. The first step is to create a vacuum in the furnace, note translation page 3. Then a gas is flowed in at a pressure and the temperature is set to over 2800c which melts some impurities and the impurities are removed after a set time period, note page 4. The difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the graphite in the crucible and pressure of second step. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable pressure of the second step and vessel for the purification in the Dal et al reference in order to further remove impurities while not damaging the graphite materials.
With regards to claim 4, the Dal et al reference teaches heating times of greater the .5hour, note page 4.
With regards to claim 6, the Dal et al reference teaches removal of iron and vanadium from the graphite note page 6.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dal et al (cn112350726) in view of Jp4307913.
The Dal et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the gas used. However, the Jp4307913 reference teaches graphite purification process using halogens, argon during the heating process note page 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Dal et al reference by the teachings of the Jp4307913 reference to use a halogen gas during the heating step in order to not have any secondary reactions with the impurities.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dal et al (cn112350726) in view of Jp4307913.
The Dal et al and Jp4307913 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the form of graphite to be purified. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable form of graphite, paper, blanket, felt or wire in the combined references in order to purify any form as the materials involved are the same.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dal et al (cn112350726) in view of Jp4307913.
The Dal et al and Jp4307913 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the heater type. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable heater type in the combined references in order to have a means that can meet the heating requirements of the process.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dal et al (cn112350726) in view of Jp4307913.
The Dal et al and Jp4307913 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the repeating of the heating step. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable number of purifying steps needed in the combined references in order to obtain the needed graphite impurity levels.
Claims 8 to 16 stand allowable over the art of record as the prior art does not teach nor render obvious the instantly claimed method. The prior art does not teach the specific process of purifying the graphite crucible with silicon carbide inside the crucible as is now claimed.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in purifying graphite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights