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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costantino et al (US Pub 2022/0055906 A1) in view of Kubota et al (USP 7,661,611 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Costantino discloses a method comprising: providing pyrolyzed, activated carbon particles of multiple size classes (paragraph 0057-0058 pyrolyzed activated carbon and 0097-0099; material of differing sizes); and separately infiltrating pores of each size class of the pyrolyzed, activated carbon particles with an electrochemical modifier to form a plurality of uniformly sized composite particles (paragraph 0105), but Costantino does not disclose classifying particles using a multi-stage classification system to produce multiple size classes of particles. Kubota teaches classifying particles using a multi-stage classification system to produce multiple size classes of particles (elements 2, 6, 10, and 13 where the material is passed through a series of classifiers) for the purpose of producing a desired size product and reprocessing undesired size product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kato, as taught by Kubota, for the purpose of producing a desired size product and reprocessing undesired size product.
Regarding claim 2, Costantino discloses blending the uniformly sized composite particles from two or more of the plurality of uniformly sized composite particles based on a predefined specification (paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 8, Costantino discloses a system comprising: a porous carbon production system configured to produce pyrolyzed, activated carbon particles, in multiple size classes (paragraph 0057-0058 pyrolyzed activated carbon and 0097-0099; material of differing sizes); and a chemical vapor infiltration system configured separately infiltrate pores of at least one of the size classes of the pyrolyzed, activated carbon particles with an electrochemical modifier to form uniformly sized composite particles (paragraph 0105), but Costantino does not disclose a multi-stage classification system configured to separate the pyrolyzed, activated carbon particles into multiple size classes. Kubota teaches a multi-stage classification system configured to separate the pyrolyzed, activated carbon particles into multiple size classes (elements 2, 6, 10, and 13 where the material is passed through a series of classifiers) for the purpose of producing a desired size product and reprocessing undesired size product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kato, as taught by Kubota, for the purpose of producing a desired size product and reprocessing undesired size product.
Regarding claim 9, Costantino discloses a blending device configured to blend the uniformly sized composite particles from two or more of the size classes based on a predefined specification (paragraph 0055).
Claims 3, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costantino/Kubota and in further view of Kato et al (USP 5,016,823).
Regarding claim 3, Costantino in view of Kubota does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Kato teaches transporting the pyrolyzed, activated carbon particles through a plurality of elbow jet classifiers (see Figs. 12 and 14; element 301) for the purpose of further differentiating particles above, below, and within the desired size range (see Fig. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Costantino, as taught by Kato, for the purpose of further differentiating particles above, below, and within the desired size range.
Regarding claim 10, Costantino in view of Kubota and Kato teaches the multi-stage classification system comprises a plurality of elbow jet classifiers (Kubota teaches a plurality of classifiers and Kato teaches elbow jet classifiers; see Figs. 12 and 14; element 301).
Regarding claim 14, Costantino in view of Kubota and Kato teaches one or more hoppers (Kato; element 307) configured to receive pyrolyzed carbon particles to be fed to one or more of the elbow jet classifiers (Kato; element 301).
Regarding claim 15, Costantino in view of Kubota and Kato teaches the one or more hoppers comprise one or more cyclone hoppers (Kato; element 307) for the purpose of further differentiating particles above, below, and within the desired size range (Kato; see Fig. 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 4-7 and 11-13 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art discloses a method of particulate classification. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious a plurality of elbow jet classifiers where one non-target carbon particle is fed from the first elbow classifier to the second elbow classifier and another non-target carbon particle is fed from the first elbow classifier to the third elbow classifier in conjunction with the other structures in claim 4.
The closest prior art discloses a system of particulate classification. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious a plurality of elbow jet classifiers where one non-target carbon particle is fed from the first elbow classifier to the second elbow classifier and another non-target carbon particle is fed from the first elbow classifier to the third elbow classifier in conjunction with the other structures in claim 11.
The closest prior art discloses a particulate classification system. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious a plurality of elbow jet classifiers where one non-target carbon particle is fed from the first elbow classifier to the second elbow classifier and another non-target carbon particle is fed from the first elbow classifier to the third elbow classifier in conjunction with the other structures in claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Thus, as illustrated in the annotated version of Figure 4 shown below, the 1st and 2nd "non-target size ranges" produced from the "first elbow jet classifier" are transported into the 2ⁿᵈ and 3rd "elbow jet classifiers," respective, in a parallel fashion. Then, the 1st and 2ⁿᵈ "non-target size ranges" are further classified in the 2ⁿᵈ and 3ʳᵈ "elbow jet classifiers" respective,” and,” By contrast, as illustrated in the annotate Figure 2 of Kubota shown below, the "first classifier" (2), "second classifier" (6) and "third classifier" (10) are arranged in series such that only one of the non-target size ranged particle streams from the "first classifier" (2) is transported to a downstream classifier (the "second classifier" (6)). As clearly shown in Figure 2 of Kubota, the other non-target size ranged particle stream is sent to a "first mill" (3), and then the further milled particles are directed back into the "first classifier,” The Examiner agrees that the present invention overcomes the prior art as the prior art discloses classifiers in series while the present invention discloses classifiers in a parallel arrangement.
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Costantino focuses on methods for impregnating Si within the pores of a porous carbon, such that the Si is impregnated as amorphous nano-sized Si, see [0011]. Nowhere does this reference describe or even suggest a need to perform multi-stage classification or to prepare a plurality of uniformly sized composite particles. To account for the deficiencies of Costantino-essentially being devoid of any teaching that relates to the active steps of Claim 1-the Office points to the secondary reference Kubota which focuses on methods for producing toners. Although the importance of multi-stage classification in the context of toners was well known at the time of the present disclosure, the Office fails to explain why motivation would have existed to apply the teachings of Kubota to the carbon particles of Costantino. As explained by the United States Supreme Court in KSR, "a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art." In this case, the Office has not even accounted for "each of the elements" of Claim 1. Whereas Kubota teaches the use of multi-stage classification to prepare toner particles, this reference clearly fails to describe or suggest performing the separate infiltration step of Claim 1. The Office has essentially ignored this feature in its analysis. See OA, 1 5. Given that the requirements for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness have not been met, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the obviousness rejections of Claims 1- 15,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Costantino discloses particulate materials of differing sizes (paragraphs 0097-0099). While Costantino discloses infiltrating pores of each of the particulate materials (paragraph 0105), Costantino does not specifically discuss the separation by size of those particulate materials. The teaching of Kubota separates the particulate materials in preparation for further processing (elements 2, 5, 10, and 13). As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kato, as taught by Kubota, for the purpose of producing a desired size product and reprocessing undesired size product.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights