Method and apparatus for producing carbon foam boards

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 § 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel (WO1998023401A1) in view of Sakai (JP2014027004A). Regarding claim 1, Stenzel discloses an apparatus for producing carbon foam boards from starch powder, comprising: a box defining an interior space; a furnace arranged within the interior space of the box, the furnace comprising a heating zone configured to receive starch-coated substrate boards, and a conveyor extending through the furnace wherein the conveyor extends from a feeding position through the heating zone and to a discharging position wherein the conveyor is configured to transport the starch- coated substrate boards from the feeding position into the heating zone, and wherein the conveyor (roller conveyor 12; claim 11) is configured to transport the starch-coated substrate boards from the heating zone the discharging position. As for the arrangement of the conveyor, MPEP 2144.04 discloses In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. PNG media_image1.png 472 611 media_image1.png Greyscale Stenzel does not explicitly disclose the interior space of the box being filled with argon or nitrogen. However, analogous art, Sakai, discloses putting a furnace in a nitrogen filled box in order to prevent oxidation and improve wettability (pg. 1 last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a nitrogen filled box, as taught by Sakai, into the apparatus taught by Tsujimoto in order prevent oxidation and improve wettability. Regarding claim 2, Stenzel depicts the feeding and discharging positions are next to one another (see figure 1). Regarding claim 3, as for wherein the conveyor (31) is a high temperature resistant conveyor belt capable of operating at a temperature of 450 C, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel (WO1998023401A1) in view of Sakai (JP2014027004A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN 102530916 A, herein referred to as ‘916. Regarding claim 4, Stenzel does not explicitly disclose a container for receiving the starch powder, wherein the container is arranged above the feed position, wherein the container comprises a sieving apparatus, and wherein the container is coupled to a shaker apparatus. However, analogous carbon foam art, ‘916, discloses using a container [0059] with a sieving apparatus [0008, 0081] and a shaker apparatus (stirrer [0059]) for the benefit of mixing the graphite in a homogenous matter [0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated container comprises a sieving apparatus, and wherein the container is coupled to a shaker apparatus for the benefit of mixing the graphite in a homogenous matter. As for the order of the apparatus, MPEP 2144.05 states it has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooden (WO2014/121331 A1). Regarding claim 6, Gooden teaches an apparatus for performing a method for producing carbon foam boards from starch powder, comprising: vacuum furnace (275) (pg. 3 paragraph 3 under summary of the invention) capable of reaching a temperature of 450 C having an evacuable thermally insulated housing fitted (pg. 7 paragraph 17) with a gas inlet for inert gas (9, 10) which projects laterally into the housing (pg. 3 paragraph 4), wherein the gas inlet is coupled to a supply means for the starch powder (Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon (e.g., starch powder), as per MPEP §2115). As for the reaching a temperature, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooden (WO2014/121331 A1) and Girardin (FR2921854A1). Gooden doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the supplying means for the starch powder comprises a reservoir container, wherein the reservoir container is connected to an angled tube arranged below the reservoir container, wherein the angled tube terminates in a side wall of the gas inlet, wherein a conveying screw is arranged in the angled tube, wherein the conveying screw serves as a metering aid for the starch powder to be deposited on the receptacle in the housing while using a gas flow of the inert gas or air in the gas inlet. Analogous art, Girardin, discloses wherein the supplying means for the starch powder comprises a reservoir container (56), wherein the reservoir container is connected to an angled tube (52) arranged below the reservoir container, wherein the angled tube terminates in a side wall of the gas inlet (see figure 5-6), wherein a conveying screw (54) is arranged in the angled tube, wherein the conveying screw serves as a metering aid for the starch powder to be deposited on the receptacle in the housing while using a gas flow of the inert gas or air in the gas inlet (see figures 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated supplying means for the starch powder comprises a reservoir container, wherein the reservoir container is connected to an angled tube arranged below the reservoir container, wherein the angled tube terminates in a side wall of the gas inlet, wherein a conveying screw is arranged in the angled tube, wherein the conveying screw serves as a metering aid for the starch powder to be deposited on the receptacle in the housing while using a gas flow of the inert gas or air in the gas inlet as taught by Giardin, into the device taught by Gooden, in order to allow an even distribution of the powder (pg. 2 paragraph 2). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As for claims 6-7, applicant argues Gooden does not disclose an inert-gas inlet coupled to a supplying means for powder or a receptacle arranged within the furnace housing below that gas inlet for layer wise deposition of powder. However the arrangement described by Gordon explain this in the (pg. 7 paragraph 17 and pg. 3 paragraph 4). Further, MPEP 2144.04 states shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. 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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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. /FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754