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 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 10 and 19 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the low thermal conductivity carbon" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes, claim 19 recites the inclusion of a low thermal conductivity carbon.
With respect to claim 19, the claim is indefinite as the claim is unclear as to which carbon composite, i.e. negative or positive, the applicant requires composite to be a coal-based activated carbon.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins et al (11,046,584) in view of Hirakawa et al (TW 2017/35424 A).
With respect to claim 1, Atkins discloses a method of processing coal, the method comprising:
subjecting raw coal to a liquefaction process to form a liquid pitch resin and treating pitch to produce advance carbon materials (see abstract, col 16 lines 10-30).
Atkins fails to discloses wherein pitch resin is subjected to a filtration process and a low crystallinity spinning process to form a raw fiber, subjecting the raw fiber to a stabilization process configured to oxygen cross-link the fiber to form a stabilized fiber; and subjecting the stabilized fiber to a carbonization process to form a low thermal conductivity carbon fiber, as claimed.
However, in a related method for producing carbon fibers from a pitch-based feedstock, Hirakawa discloses a process, comprising:
subjecting the liquid pitch resin to a filtration process (see page 6, carbon precursor);
subjecting the liquid pitch resin to a low crystallinity spinning process to form a raw fiber (see page 7, resin composite fiber);
subjecting the raw fiber to a stabilization process configured to oxygen cross-link the fiber to form a stabilized fiber (see page 9, resin composite fiber); and
subjecting the stabilized fiber to a carbonization process to form a low thermal conductivity carbon fiber (see page 10, carbonization firing step).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atkins in view of Hirakawa, as the combination of the two prior art elements references both relating to the production of pitch-based carbon fibers would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to claim 4, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Hirakawa further discloses the process further comprising adding a blend additive to the pitch resin before, the blend additive a thermoplastic blend additive (see page 6, resin composition).
With respect to claim 5, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Hirakawa further discloses wherein the low crystallinity spinning process includes physically altering the spinning conditions (see page 8, see second paragraph).
With respect to claim 7, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 5. Hirakawa further discloses using specialized spinnerets to promote shearing (see page 8).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Voskian et al (US 2021/0062351).
With respect to claim 8, Voskian discloses a method for manufacturing an electro-swing reactive adsorption (ESA) system, the system comprising:
forming a carbon composite negative electrode (110) (paragraph 0087);
forming a carbon composite anode electrode (120) (paragraph 0087); and
positioning one or more separator membranes between the negative electrode and the anode electrode (112) (see paragraph 0040 and 0088).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voskian as applied to claim 8 above.
With respect to claim 9, Voskian discloses the limitation of claim 8. Voskian does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon composite has a low thermal conductivity.
However, given that the Applicant has failed to define a range of what the Applicant regards as low thermal conductivity. The limitation is considered broad and does not overcome the rejection of Voskian.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with the claimed, low thermal conductivity carbon, through routine experimentation, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voskian as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hirakawa et al (TW 2017/35424 A).
With respect to claim 10, Voskian discloses the limitation of claim 8.
Voskian does not disclose forming a low conductivity fiber, as claimed.
However, in related processes, Atkins discloses a method of processing coal, the method comprising:
subjecting raw coal to a liquefaction process to form a liquid pitch resin and treating pitch to produce advance carbon materials (see abstract, col 16 lines 10-30).
Hirakawa discloses a process, comprising:
subjecting the liquid pitch resin to a filtration process (see page 6, carbon precursor);
subjecting the liquid pitch resin to a low crystallinity spinning process to form a raw fiber (see page 7, resin composite fiber);
subjecting the raw fiber to a stabilization process configured to oxygen cross-link the fiber to form a stabilized fiber (see page 9, resin composite fiber); and
subjecting the stabilized fiber to a carbonization process to form a low thermal conductivity carbon fiber (see page 10, carbonization firing step).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Voskian in view of Atkins and Hirakawa, as the combination of the prior art elements references both relating to the production of pitch-based carbon fibers would have yielded predictable results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Voskian et al (US 2021/0062351).
With respect to claim 16, Voskian discloses an electro-swing reactive adsorption (ESA) system, the system comprising:
a carbon composite negative electrode (110) (paragraph 0087);
a carbon composite anode electrode (120)(paragraph 0087); and
one or more separator membranes positioned between the negative electrode and the anode electrode (112)(see paragraph 0040 and 0088).
With respect to claim 20, Voskian discloses the limitation of claim 16. Voskian further discloses wherein the ESA system is included in a direct air capture (DAC) system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voskian as applied to claim 8 above.
With respect to claim 17-18, Voskian discloses the limitation of claim 16.
Voskian does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon composite has a low thermal conductivity.
However, given that the Applicant has failed to define a range of what the Applicant regards as low thermal conductivity. The limitation is considered broad and does not overcome the rejection of Voskian.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with the claimed, low thermal conductivity carbon, through routine experimentation, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voskian as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al (US 2003/0179537).
With respect to claim 19, Voskian discloses the limitation of claim 16. Voskian does not disclose wherein the carbon composite is a coal-based activated carbon.
However, in a related process Tanaka discloses wherein electrode material is made from an activated carbon material (see abstract and page 12, claim 17-18)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective to modify Voskian with a carbon composite that is a coal-based activated carbon in view of Tanaka, as said electrodes are conventional.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6, 11-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 2-3, the closest prior art Hirakawa (TW 2017/35424) fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the process, such that process is performed in the absence of a plasticizer.
With respect to claim 6, the closest prior art Hirakawa (TW 2017/35424) fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the process, such that process is performed in the presence of a blowing agent.
With respect to claims 11-15, the closest prior art Hirakawa (TW 2017/35424) fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the process, such that process includes treating at least some of the solid char to produce an amount of the carbon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights