DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 6/18/2026 has been entered.
Applicant amends claim 1 by incorporating the subject matter of now-cancelled claims 4 and 6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Table 1 has a typographic error (pointed out in the Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief mailed 8/26/2025- pages 18-19; no correction filed in the response filed 6/18/2026). There is a typographical error in Table 1 for Comparative Example 4, value B, which should be 8.1 versus 6.1 given the B-A value is 1.2 nm, with 8.1-6.9 = 1.2 (nm). It is noted that as described throughout the entire specification, the graphitization treatment increases the La(100) value such that this value could not be less than the original starting value such that 6.1 nm does not appear possible or consistent with the taught (B-A) nm value of 1.2 for Comparative Example 4.
Additionally, P23 of the specification as filed should correct “nay” to “may”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the correction provided.
4. Claims 5 and 14 are objected to because they do not invoke full and proper antecedent basis in view of the amendments filed to claim 1. Each of claims 5 and 14 should be amended to reflect that the AD/AG range claimed is the E value presented in amended claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. An applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer; where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2111.01, Section IV.
Applicant has disavowed the claim scope from being interpreted “as having the meaning defined in commonly used dictionaries” (P18). Applicant states in the disclosure that, “It will be further understood the words or terms should be interpreted as having a meaning that is consistent with their meaning in the context of the relevant art and the technical idea of the invention, based on the principle than an inventor may properly define the meaning of the words of terms to best explain the invention” (P18).
The Applicant has provided their own definitions to the following words or terms used in the claims and outlined below for clarity of the record as to how the term is being interpreted against the prior art. It is noted that this claim interpretation has been utilized throughout prosecution, and it placed on the record solely for clarity:
“XRD” is X-ray diffraction (P22 of the PGPUB)
“La(100)” is interpreted as a lateral average size of graphitic crystallites of the carbon nanotube. The following comment was made in the Patent Board Decision mailed 4/16/2026 reflecting this term:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The interpretation of “La(100)” as utilized in the claim is continued to be interpreted accordingly.
“Lc(002) of the carbon nanotube” is defined in the specification as, “…a parameter corresponding to the thickness of a carbon layer (cylindrical layer) composed of a plurality of layers (wall) in a multi-walled carbon nanotube1” (P34)
Flygare et al., “Quantifying crystallinity in carbon nanotubes and its influence on mechanical behavior,” Materials Today Communications, 18 (2019) 39-45, available online 09 Nov. 2018 (copy previously provided) was cited in prior pertinent prior art sections and includes the following helpful visual representation of both La (=“La(100)”) and Lc (=“Lc(100)”) as utilized in the claims and specification:
PNG
media_image2.png
612
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
AD/AG is defined as:
“a value obtained by fitting [wavelength-peak] graph by setting a base line so that a D peak and a G peak may be distinguished, and the diving the graph area (AD) of a portion in which the D peak appears by the graph area (AG) of a portion in which the G peak appears using built-in software, NRS-2000B,Jasco Co., Ltd. In the Raman spectrum, the G peak is defined as the peak near 1590 cm-1 (due to an E2g vibrational mode of a sp2 coupling of carbon), and the D peak is defined as the peak near 1350 cm-1 that appears when there is a defect in the sp2 coupling of carbon (P23).
The above explicit definitions will control the interpretations of these terms or phrases, respectively, as the phrase is used in the claim. No change in the interpretation of these terms or phrases has been made; the interpretation set forth above has been consistent and applied throughout prosecution and it is outlined here solely for clarity of the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 3-8 and 11-14; claim 9; claim 10; claim 4; claim 6, and claim 12 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 were withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer mailed 8/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Ortiz et al., “Morphology and surface structure of nanocarbon allotropes: A comparative study,” Fullerenes, Nanotubes, and Carbon Nanostructures, published online 10 May 2016, (copy provided within file by Applicant) is maintained.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Hernandez-Ortiz teaches a carbon nanotube (labeled “MW” or “MW-f” in the disclosure) having:
an La, lateral average size of graphitic crystallites, (i.e., “La(100)”) or “A” as claimed (“A is the La(100) of the carbon nanotube”) with a value estimated at 5.8 nm from Fig. 1b as measured by XRD [claimed range is less than 7.0 nm] (p. 346; 347, Fig. 1b), and
a specific surface area of 90 to 350 m2/(p. 346, left column under Materials and reagents) [claimed range is 100 m2/g to 196 m2/g with the taught range entirely encompassing the presented range].
Hernandez-Ortiz teaches the carbon nanotube having the original or pre-graphitization La value (5.8 nm) (“A” value) in the range presented (a value less than 7.0 nm), as well a specific surface area range overlapping/encompassing the claimed range. Hernandez-Ortiz fails to explicitly teach the carbon nanotube has a B-A of 0.70 nm or greater (claim 1) or a range of 0.70 nm to 2.00 nm (claim 12), wherein B is an La(100) of a sample of the carbon nanotube measured by XRD after the sample of the caron nanotube undergoes a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C.
It is the position of the Examiner that if the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz, having the original or pre-graphitization La value (5.8 nm) or “A” value in the range presented (a value less than 7.0 nm), was subsequently subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, then all the structure necessary to achieve a B-A range overlapping/encompassing the B-A ranges claimed would intrinsically be achieved in the [final] product (to which the independent claim is not drawn to), especially in view of Applicant’s disclosure which teaches the initial La(100) value is the structure necessary to achieve the B-A value (P26-33 of the instant application PGPUB). It is noted that no additional structure is set forth in the claims or instant application that is necessary to achieve a subsequent transformation of the carbon nanotube of claim 1 during the graphitization treatment into a final product that meets the B-A ranges presented in the claims. Accordingly, the Examiner finds no reason that the original carbon nanotube as claimed within claim 1 and met by Hernandez-Ortiz, when subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, would not behave and transform in the same way such that it is achieves the B-A range overlapping or encompassing the range presented. It is noted that the US Patent Trail and Appeal Board affirmed the above findings in the Patent Board Decision mailed 4/16/2026.
Regarding the “D-C” range claimed:
Hernandez-Ortiz fails to disclose a value for “C” as defined for the carbon nanotube (e.g., an Lc (002) (unit: nm) value when XRD is measured for the carbon nanotube. Hernandez-Ortiz teaches multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT), said MWCNTs intrinsically have some value for C (e.g., an Lc (002) (unit: nm) value) given Lc (002) is the distance between the multiple layers or the thickness of the cylindrical carbon layer.
The instant disclosure does not recite a range for “C” or establish any kind of criticality with respect to this feature alone. The instant disclosure does relate the D-C value claimed to the amount of impurities of the carbon nanotube (P34 of the PGPUB), and that when impurities are present in a significant amount, the D-C value is a high value with the following explanation (P34):
PNG
media_image3.png
177
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Both the instant disclosure (P35-36 of the PGPUB) and Hernandez-Ortiz teach that the G-bands and D-bands, as well as their ratios including D/G, are used to establish purity of the nanocarbon materials (P. 346). Given the D/G area value of the MWCNTs (Fig. 1b) of Hernandez-Ortiz is in the claimed ranges for the instant disclosure AD/AG value (see claims 5 and 14; instant disclosure at P35-36 of the PGPUB) which establishes the purity of the materials, and the purity of the materials is the feature that dictates the D-C value as claimed, it is considered intrinsic to the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz that the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz with a D/G value within the ranges claimed, once subjected to subsequent processing in the form of graphitization treatment at 2500 °C, would be capable of achieving a D-C value overlapping or encompassing the D-C range claimed.
Regarding the E-F range claimed:
Furthermore regarding the claim, Hernandez-Ortiz teaches the carbon nanotube has
an AD/AG of 0.9 or greater when measured by the Raman spectrum (see D/G value in Fig. 1b and discussed at p. 346). It is noted that the taught AD/AG value is the pre-graphitization “E” value.
Hernandez-Ortiz fails to explicitly teach the carbon nanotube has an E-F of 0.50 or greater: wherein E is an AD/AG when the Raman spectrum is measured for the carbon nanotube before graphitization treatment at 2500°C, and F is an AD/AG when the Raman spectrum is measured for the carbon nanotube after the graphitization treatment.
It is the position of the Examiner that if the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz, having the original or pre-graphitization AD/AG value in the range presented (claim 5: 0.9 or greater), was subsequently subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, then all the structure necessary to be capable of achieving an E-F range overlapping/encompassing the E-F range claimed would intrinsically be achieved in the [final] product (to which the independent claim is not drawn to).
It is noted that no additional structure is set forth in the claims or specification that is necessary to achieve a subsequent transformation of the carbon nanotube during the graphitization treatment into a final (not-claimed) product capable of achieving the E-F range presented. Accordingly, the Examiner finds no reason that the original carbon nanotube as claimed within claim 1 and met by Hernandez-Ortiz, when subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, would not behave and transform in the same way such that is intrinsically capable of achieving an E-F range overlapping or encompassing the range presented.
The entire disclosure of Hernandez-Ortiz is relied upon for all claims with specific citations above.
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Hernandez-Ortiz teaches the carbon nanotube of claim 1 having an AD/AG of 0.9 or greater when measured by the Raman spectrum (see D/G value in Fig. 1b and discussed at p. 346). Hernandez-Ortiz teaches where wherein the AD/AG is within the range of 0.9 to 2.0 (see D/G value in Fig. 1b and discussed at p. 346).
Furthermore, Hernandez-Ortiz discusses the criticality of D/G (claimed AD/AG) and meaning and application thereof (p. 346- Results & Discussion), such that it would furthermore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the optimum value of the D/G ratio (i.e., the known result effective variable) which establishes the relationship of purity of nanocarbon materials (P.346) given the
discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 7, Hernandez-Ortiz teaches the carbon nanotube of claim 1 being a multi-walled carbon nanotube (p. 346, left column under Materials and reagents). It is noted that although not explicitly stated in claim 1; the carbon nanotube of claim 1 must be a multi-walled carbon nanotube given it now recites Lc(002) values which is a feature defined as a feature of a multi-walled carbon nanotube.
Regarding claim 8, Hernandez-Ortiz teaches the carbon nanotube of claim 1 having an average diameter of 10 nm to 30 nm (p. 346, left column under Materials and reagents).
Regarding claim 11, Hernandez-Ortiz teaches wherein the La(100) is with a value estimated at 5.8 nm from figure (p. 346; 347, Fig. 1b) [claimed range is 5.00 nm to 6.98 nm].
8. The rejection of claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Ortiz et al., “Morphology and surface structure of nanocarbon allotropes: A comparative study,” Fullerenes, Nanotubes, and Carbon Nanostructures, published online 10 May 2016, (copy provided within file by Applicant) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Rowley et al. (US 2007/0292622) is maintained.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Hernandez-Ortiz teaches the carbon nanotube of claim 1 comprising a functional group containing oxygen atoms (p. 346, Functionalization Step; see Fig. 2b characterizing the IR spectra of functionalized MWCNT-f with -COOH groups). Hernandez-Ortiz teaches the functionalization of the carbon nanotubes occurs by way of H2SO4/HNO3 (sulfuric acid/nitric acid) treatment (P. 346, Functionalization Step).
Hernandez-Ortiz is silent as to the amount of the functional group containing oxygen atoms (-COOH) in the carbon nanotube is 1.2 wt% or greater relative to a total weight of the carbon nanotube (claim 3), or is 1.5 wt% to 5.0 wt% relative to the total weight of the carbon tube (claim 13).
In the same field of endeavor, Rowley teaches analogous art of functionalized carbon nanotubes with carboxylic acid groups (-COOH) and that the amount of carboxylic acids is a known-result effective variable in terms of being able to achieve stable dispersions of the carbon nanotubes (P35), wherein the preferable level of functionalization is 0.5-50 atomic percent (defined as 1 atomic percent being 1 out of every 100 carbons of the carbon nanotube has a functional group covalently attached) (P35). It is noted that while the claims recite a weight percent relative to the total weight of the carbon nanotube, this is just a different manner of defining the same thing: the amount of the -COOH functional group relative to the carbon nanotube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the workable or optimum amount of -COOH groups (“a functional group containing oxygen atoms”) relative to the carbon nanotube present on the MWCNTs of Hernandez-Ortiz in order to achieve a desired level of dispersibility as taught by Rowley (P35). “Where 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). Furthermore, the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable (i.e., amount of -COOH groups to achieve a desired dispersibility), without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
9. The rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Ortiz et al., “Morphology and surface structure of nanocarbon allotropes: A comparative study,” Fullerenes, Nanotubes, and Carbon Nanostructures, published online 10 May 2016, (copy provided within file by Applicant) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 2010/0047690) is maintained.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Hernandez-Ortiz fails to teaches an electrode comprising the carbon nanotube of claim 1 (claim 9), or a secondary battery comprising the electrode of claim 9 (claim 10). It is an extremely well-known technique to provide carbon nanotubes to an electrode of a secondary battery to function as the electrical conducting material as taught by Tsuchiya (P76), wherein by using electrical conducting material such as carbon nanotubes as taught by Tsuchiya within such a construct, electric inter-engagement between the electrode active materials can be increased and the discharging rate property can be improved when used in a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (P76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the carbon nanotubes of Hernandez-Ortiz within an electrode of a secondary battery given Tsuchiya teaches the technique and constructs are known in the prior art, wherein by using carbon nanotubes as an electrical conducting material in the construct claimed, electric inter-engagement between the electrode active materials can be increased and the discharging rate property can be improved when used in a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (P76).
Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP § 2144.07; case law cited below):
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
10. The alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Ortiz et al., “Morphology and surface structure of nanocarbon allotropes: A comparative study,” Fullerenes, Nanotubes, and Carbon Nanostructures, published online 10 May 2016, (copy provided within file by Applicant) in view of Hamilton, Jr. et al., “Purification of sidewall functionalization of multiwalled carbon nanotubes and resulting bioactivity in two microphage models,” Inhal. Toxicol., 2013 March; 25(4): 199-210 (copy previously provided) is maintained (previously made against claim 4, the subject matter being incorporated into claim 1 as addressed below).
Regarding claim 1, Hernandez-Ortiz teaches a carbon nanotube (labeled “MW” or “MW-f” in the disclosure) having:
an La, lateral average size of graphitic crystallites, (i.e., “La(100)”) or “A” as claimed (“A is the La(100) of the carbon nanotube”) with a value estimated at 5.8 nm from Fig. 1b as measured by XRD [claimed range is less than 7.0 nm] (p. 346; 347, Fig. 1b), and
a specific surface area of 90 to 350 m2/(p. 346, left column under Materials and reagents) [claimed range is 100 m2/g to 196 m2/g with the taught range entirely encompassing the presented range].
Hernandez-Ortiz teaches the carbon nanotube having the original or pre-graphitization La value (5.8 nm) (“A” value) in the range presented (a value less than 7.0 nm), as well a specific surface area range overlapping/encompassing the claimed range. Hernandez-Ortiz fails to explicitly teach the carbon nanotube has a B-A of 0.70 nm or greater, wherein B is an La(100) of a sample of the carbon nanotube measured by XRD after the sample of the caron nanotube undergoes a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C.
It is the position of the Examiner that if the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz, having the original or pre-graphitization La value (5.8 nm) or “A” value in the range presented (a value less than 7.0 nm), was subsequently subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, then all the structure necessary to achieve a B-A range overlapping/encompassing the B-A ranges claimed would intrinsically be achieved in the [final] product (to which the independent claim is not drawn to), especially in view of Applicant’s disclosure which teaches the initial La(100) value is the structure necessary to achieve the B-A value (P26-33 of the instant application PGPUB). It is noted that no additional structure is set forth in the claims or instant application that is necessary to achieve a subsequent transformation of the carbon nanotube of claim 1 during the graphitization treatment into a final product that meets the B-A ranges presented in the claims. Accordingly, the Examiner finds no reason that the original carbon nanotube as claimed within claim 1 and met by Hernandez-Ortiz, when subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, would not behave and transform in the same way such that it is achieves the B-A range overlapping or encompassing the range presented. It is noted that the US Patent Trail and Appeal Board affirmed the above findings in the Patent Board Decision mailed 4/16/2026.
Regarding the “D-C” range claimed:
Hernandez-Ortiz fails to disclose a value for “C” as defined for the carbon nanotube (e.g., an Lc (002) (unit: nm) value when XRD is measured for the carbon nanotube. Hernandez-Ortiz teaches multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT), said MWCNTs intrinsically have some value for C (e.g., an Lc (002) (unit: nm) value) given Lc (002) is the distance between the multiple layers or the thickness of the cylindrical carbon layer.
The instant disclosure does not recite a range for “C” or establish any kind of criticality with respect to this feature alone. The instant disclosure does relate the D-C value claimed to the amount of impurities of the carbon nanotube (P34 of the PGPUB), and that when impurities are present in a significant amount, the D-C value is a high value with the following explanation (P34):
PNG
media_image3.png
177
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Both the instant disclosure (P35-36 of the PGPUB) and Hernandez-Ortiz teach that the G-bands and D-bands, as well as their ratios including D/G, are used to establish purity of the nanocarbon materials (P. 346). Given the D/G area value of the MWCNTs (Fig. 1b) of Hernandez-Ortiz is in the claimed ranges for the instant disclosure AD/AG value (see claims 5 and 14; instant disclosure at P35-36 of the PGPUB) which establishes the purity of the materials, and the purity of the materials is the feature that dictates the D-C value as claimed, it is considered intrinsic to the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz that the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz with a D/G value within the ranges claimed, once subjected to subsequent processing in the form of graphitization treatment at 2500 °C, would be capable of achieving a D-C value overlapping or encompassing the D-C range claimed.
Regarding the “E-F” range claimed:
Furthermore regarding the claim, Hernandez-Ortiz teaches the carbon nanotube has
an AD/AG of 0.9 or greater when measured by the Raman spectrum (see D/G value in Fig. 1b and discussed at p. 346). It is noted that the taught AD/AG value is the pre-graphitization “E” value.
Hernandez-Ortiz fails to explicitly teach the carbon nanotube has an E-F of 0.50 or greater: wherein E is an AD/AG when the Raman spectrum is measured for the carbon nanotube before graphitization treatment at 2500°C, and F is an AD/AG when the Raman spectrum is measured for the carbon nanotube after the graphitization treatment.
It is the position of the Examiner that if the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz, having the original or pre-graphitization AD/AG value in the range presented (claim 5: 0.9 or greater), was subsequently subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, then all the structure necessary to be capable of achieving an E-F range overlapping/encompassing the E-F range claimed would intrinsically be achieved in the [final] product (to which the independent claim is not drawn to).
It is noted that no additional structure is set forth in the claims or specification that is necessary to achieve a subsequent transformation of the carbon nanotube during the graphitization treatment into a final (not-claimed) product capable of achieving the E-F range presented. Accordingly, the Examiner finds no reason that the original carbon nanotube as claimed within claim 1 and met by Hernandez-Ortiz, when subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, would not behave and transform in the same way such that is intrinsically capable of achieving an E-F range overlapping or encompassing the range presented.
The entire disclosure of Hernandez-Ortiz is relied upon for all claims with specific citations above.
The alternative teaching applied to now-cancelled claim 4 (the “D-C” range), incorporated into claim 1:
Additionally, in the instance that the MWCNTs are desired to have a low impurity content (and thus low or non-existent D-C value) for their end use within a given application, Hamilton, Jr. teaches techniques by which as-received MWCNT can have the amorphous carbon layer (the taught impurity at P34 of the instant disclosure) removed prior to the introduction of -COOH groups (abstract; entire disclosure; p. 1-2, 6-8). Hamilton, Jr. teaches that the amorphous carbon layer can jeopardize intrinsic optical, electrical, and mechanical properties of MWCNT and have undesirable biological activities and in addition, the surface amorphous layer causes interference with the functionalization of the sidewall of MWCNT such that it is necessary to remove said amorphous impurities and residual metals prior to functionalization (p. 2). It is noted that Hamilton, Jr. also teaches the ID/IG ratio and that it reflects the content of the amorphous carbon (p. 7-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the known technique of purifying the MWCNT of Hernandez-Ortiz prior to the introduction of -COOH groups given Hamilton, Jr. teaches such a technique is known in the art, and provides the advantages of avoiding the issues caused by the impurities, as well as promoting the -COOH functionalization thereof (entire disclosure relied upon).
The purified MWCNT of Hernandez-Ortiz as modified by Hamilton, Jr. would thus have the amorphous layer removed (p. 7) such that the D-C value would be zero nm (0.0 nm) (a value within the range claimed of 0.18 nm or less).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 as filed on 6/18/2026 adds the subject matter of claims 4 and 6 to the independent claim. The traversal presented by Applicant does not traverse the findings of fact and technical reasoning previously analyzed by the Examiner against these claims, which present a scientific basis to believe that the carbon nanotubes of Hernandez-Ortiz (labeled “MW” or “MW-f” in the reference) having an “E” value (AD/AG) that meets the claim 5 and 14 ranges presented for AD/AG, when subjected to the graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, would intrinsically provide for a range overlapping or encompassing the E-F range presented, wherein this taught AD/AG value (see Fig. 1b), on the basis of the scientific analysis presented within prior claim 4, would intrinsically also provide for a range within, overlapping, or encompassing the D-C range presented.
Furthermore, the D-C range presented was also met with alternative prior art in an alternative rejection (maintained above), wherein no comments or traversal whatsoever are presented against the prior art and analysis applied in this alternative rejection of the prior-claim 4 subject matter, now incorporated into claim 1.
The arguments presented by Applicant are repeated below with Examiner-response sections provided that are respectfully submitted:
Applicant argues: Amended independent claim 1 requires that the carbon nanotube have, in addition to a B-A of 0.70 nm or greater, a D-C of 0.18 nm or less and a E-F of 0.50 or greater. According to the present specification, a D-C of 0.18 nm or less means that the amount of impurities on the carbon nanotube surface are remarkably low and that the carbon nanotube has high purity. (Specification, para. [0034]). Additionally, a E-F of 0.50 or greater means that the carbon nanotube before graphitization has low crystallinity and high flexibility. (Specification, para. [0037]).
These limitations do not merely add further static physical properties to the carbon nanotube of amended independent claim 1. Rather, they define a specific graphitization response profile exhibited by the carbon nanotube when treated at 2,500 °C. Specifically, B-A represents the change in La(100), as derived from XRD, in the growth direction; D-C represents the change in Lc(002), as derived from XRD, corresponding to the thickness of the cylindrical carbon layers forming the multi- walls; and E-F represents the change in the Raman AD/AG ratio before and after graphitization. (Specification, para. [0037]).
In response: As to the “specific graphitization response profile exhibited by the carbon nanotube when treated at 2,500 °C,” these features are considered intrinsic properties to the original carbon nanotube (what is being claimed) that are considered inseparable from the original, pre-graphitized carbon nanotube. “[A] chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.” (MPEP 2112.01(II); See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.”).
Applicant previously argued the “B-A” value as a property of the carbon nanotube with the comparison example given of heat of combustion being used as an analogous measurement technique to characterize a property of the material prior to combustion. Applicant concluded that, “Likewise, the property “B-A” of the carbon nanotube recited in independent claim 1 is a property of the claimed carbon nanotube, before graphitization, even though a graphitization process is used to measure the property” (pages 3-5 of the Appeal Brief filed 7/14/2025, reproduced in part below):
PNG
media_image4.png
182
679
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
372
653
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Examiner agrees with this analysis by Applicant, and likewise, each of the D-C and E-F ranges claimed are considered properties of the carbon nanotube recited in claim 1, before graphitization, even though a graphitization process is used to measure the property.
As to the previously set forth scientific basis and technical reasoning as to why ranges overlapping or encompassing the properties of each of the B-A, D-C, and E-F ranges presented are considered intrinsic to the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Oritz, as detailed in the original rejections of record against the claimed subject matter, there is a scientific basis to believe each is met by the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Oritz for the reasons listed below.
As to the B-A property (pages 18-20 of the Examiner’s Answer mailed 8/26/2025):
There are no further structural attributes of the pre-graphitized carbon nanotube required to meet the B-A value outside of the original La(100) “A” value described anywhere within the instant application;
P31-32 of the specification as filed describes that the “B” value is obtained because the carbon nanotube undergoing the graphitization treatment has the low crystallinity with a short growth unit structure, which is numerically quantified by the La(100) “A” value; and
Appellant’s own data in the instant application demonstrates this feature to hold true, with Table 1 reproduced below and further discussed:
PNG
media_image6.png
308
698
media_image6.png
Greyscale
1There is a typographical error in Table 1 for Comparative Example 4, value B, which should be 8.1 versus 6.1 given the B-A value is 1.2 nm, with 8.1-6.9 = 1.2 (nm). It is noted that as described throughout the entire specification, the graphitization treatment increases the La(100) value such that this value could not be less than the original starting value such that 6.1 nm does not appear possible or consistent with the taught (B-A) nm value of 1.2 for Comparative Example 4.
As shown above in Table 1, every example that has an La(100) “A” value of less than 7.0 nm as required in claim 1, meets the property that the carbon nanotube has a B-A value in the range of 0.7 nm or greater when a sample of the carbon nanotube undergoes a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C.
Thus, there is no evidence in the record or any technical reason to believe that if the prior art teaches a carbon nanotube having an La(100) “A” value that is within the range claimed of less than 7.0 nm when measured by XRD, a measurement that quantifies the attributes achieved by the method of making including short growth unit length, low crystallinity, and a bamboo shape (see P13, 28, 58), that the carbon nanotube of the prior art would have the taught property of the B-A value as defined given it is well understood that “[a] chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.” MPEP 2112.01(II); See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01(II)).
Accordingly, given the prior art to Hernandez-Ortiz applied to claim 1 teaches a carbon nanotube having an La, lateral average size of graphitic crystallites, (i.e., “La(100)”) or “A” as claimed (“A is the La(100) of the carbon nanotube”) with a value estimated at 5.8 nm from Fig. 1b as measured by XRD [claimed range is less than 7.0 nm] (p. 346; 347, Fig. 1b), the claimed property of the B-A value is considered to intrinsically and naturally flow therefrom given products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.
The Examiner has thus appropriately set forth a technical reasoning and basis in the facts and objective evidence before her to reasonably conclude that the B-A property necessarily flows from the structure taught by the prior art. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). At the present time, in view of the Examiner’s sound basis as outlined above for believing that the products are the same and the absence of any technical reason or objective evidence to believe inherency does not hold true for the B-A property claimed, Appellant has not met the burden of showing that the carbon nanotube of Appellant and the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz differ with regard to the B-A property set forth given Hernandez-Ortiz teaches an La(100) value within the range set forth. Therefore, the above arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is respectfully maintained.
As to the D-C property (original rejection of claim 4 + alternative rejection of claim 4):
Hernandez-Ortiz fails to disclose a value for “C” as defined for the carbon nanotube (e.g., an Lc (002) (unit: nm) value when XRD is measured for the carbon nanotube. Hernandez-Ortiz teaches multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT), said MWCNTs intrinsically have some value for C (e.g., an Lc (002) (unit: nm) value) given Lc (002) is the distance between the multiple layers or the thickness of the cylindrical carbon layer.
The instant disclosure does not recite a range for “C” or establish any kind of criticality with respect to this feature alone. The instant disclosure does relate the D-C value claimed to the amount of impurities of the carbon nanotube (P34 of the PGPUB), and that when impurities are present in a significant amount, the D-C value is a high value with the following explanation (P34):
PNG
media_image3.png
177
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Both the instant disclosure (P35-36 of the PGPUB) and Hernandez-Ortiz teach that the G-bands and D-bands, as well as their ratios including D/G, are used to establish purity of the nanocarbon materials (P. 346). Given the D/G area value of the MWCNTs (Fig. 1b) of Hernandez-Ortiz is in the claimed ranges for the instant disclosure AD/AG value (see claims 5 and 14; instant disclosure at P35-36 of the PGPUB) which establishes the purity of the materials, and the purity of the materials is the feature that dictates the D-C value as claimed, it is considered intrinsic to the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz that the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz with a D/G value within the ranges claimed, once subjected to subsequent processing in the form of graphitization treatment at 2500 °C, would be capable of achieving a D-C value overlapping or encompassing the D-C range claimed.
See also the alternative rejection made against the D-C range:
Additionally, in the instance that the MWCNTs are desired to have a low impurity content (and thus low or non-existent D-C value) for their end use within a given application, Hamilton, Jr. teaches techniques by which as-received MWCNT can have the amorphous carbon layer (the taught impurity at P34 of the instant disclosure) removed prior to the introduction of -COOH groups (abstract; entire disclosure; p. 1-2, 6-8). Hamilton, Jr. teaches that the amorphous carbon layer can jeopardize intrinsic optical, electrical, and mechanical properties of MWCNT and have undesirable biological activities and in addition, the surface amorphous layer causes interference with the functionalization of the sidewall of MWCNT such that it is necessary to remove said amorphous impurities and residual metals prior to functionalization (p. 2). It is noted that Hamilton, Jr. also teaches the ID/IG ratio and that it reflects the content of the amorphous carbon (p. 7-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the known technique of purifying the MWCNT of Hernandez-Ortiz prior to the introduction of -COOH groups given Hamilton, Jr. teaches such a technique is known in the art, and provides the advantages of avoiding the issues caused by the impurities, as well as promoting the -COOH functionalization thereof (entire disclosure relied upon).
The purified MWCNT of Hernandez-Ortiz as modified by Hamilton, Jr. would thus have the amorphous layer removed (p. 7) such that the D-C value would be zero nm (0.0 nm) (a value within the range claimed of 0.18 nm or less).
As to the E-F property:
It is the position of the Examiner that if the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz, having the original or pre-graphitization AD/AG value in the range presented (claim 5: 0.9 or greater), was subsequently subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, then all the structure necessary to be capable of achieving an E-F range overlapping/encompassing the E-F range claimed would intrinsically be achieved in the [final] product (to which the independent claim is not drawn to).
It is noted that no additional structure is set forth in the claims or specification that is necessary to achieve a subsequent transformation of the carbon nanotube during the graphitization treatment into a final (not-claimed) product capable of achieving the E-F range presented. Accordingly, the Examiner finds no reason that the original carbon nanotube as claimed within claim 1 and met by Hernandez-Ortiz, when subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, would not behave and transform in the same way such that is intrinsically capable of achieving an E-F range overlapping or encompassing the range presented.
Accordingly, the “specific graphitization response profile exhibited by the carbon nanotube when treated at 2,500 °C” has been fully addressed in the rejections of record, each being a property of the carbon nanotube claimed that is inseparable therefrom.
Applicant argues: Applicant respectfully submits that the carbon nanotubes of amended independent claim 1 are not structurally identical to the carbon nanotubes of Hernandez-Oritz.
In response: The Examiner did not argue that the carbon nanotubes of Hernandez-Oritz were “structurally identical” to those claimed. Such a rejection would be one of anticipation, wherein the rejection of record is one of obviousness given the taught ranges, as well as those held intrinsic to the carbon nanotubes Hernandez-Oritz , are ranges that overlap or encompass those claimed, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Applicant argues: Hernandez-Oritz, at best, describes carbon nanotubes having some overlapping average parameters; however, Hernandez-Oritz does not disclose carbon nanotubes that necessarily have the claimed B-A of 0.70 nm or greater, D- C of 0.18 nm or less, and E-F of 0.50 or greater, which relate to the growth-unit structure, bamboo- like node structure, crystallinity in the wall-thickness direction, amorphous carbon impurity level, and defect distribution.
Specifically, Hernandez-Oritz does not teach that the carbon nanotubes have a D-C of 0.18 nm or less, where C is an Lc(002) (unit: nm) of the carbon nanotube measured by XRD and D is an Lc(002) (unit: nm) of the sample of the carbon nanotube measured by XRD after the sample of the carbon nanotube undergoes the graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C. Lc(002) corresponds to the thickness of the cylindrical carbon layers composed of the multiple walls of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and D-C represents the change in that wall-thickness direction upon graphitization. Hernandez-Oritz neither discloses nor suggests measuring Lc(002) before and after graphitization at 2,500 °C, much less the claimed D-C value.
In response: Respectfully, this does not address the analysis made by the Examiner setting forth a scientific basis to believe the carbon nanotubes of Hernandez-Oritz intrinsically would have a D-C value in a range overlapping or encompassing that claimed if subjected to the graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C on the basis of the taught AD/AG value of the carbon nanotube (“MW” or “Mw-f”) (see Fig. 1b), its relation to the purity of the material, and the purity of the material dictating the D-C value as claimed. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth below; no traversal is presented against this analysis and fact-finding previously presented:
Hernandez-Ortiz fails to disclose a value for “C” as defined for the carbon nanotube (e.g., an Lc (002) (unit: nm) value when XRD is measured for the carbon nanotube. Hernandez-Ortiz teaches multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT), said MWCNTs intrinsically have some value for C (e.g., an Lc (002) (unit: nm) value) given Lc (002) is the distance between the multiple layers or the thickness of the cylindrical carbon layer.
The instant disclosure does not recite a range for “C” or establish any kind of criticality with respect to this feature alone. The instant disclosure does relate the D-C value claimed to the amount of impurities of the carbon nanotube (P34 of the PGPUB), and that when impurities are present in a significant amount, the D-C value is a high value with the following explanation (P34):
PNG
media_image3.png
177
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Both the instant disclosure (P35-36 of the PGPUB) and Hernandez-Ortiz teach that the G-bands and D-bands, as well as their ratios including D/G, are used to establish purity of the nanocarbon materials (P. 346). Given the D/G area value of the MWCNTs (Fig. 1b) of Hernandez-Ortiz is in the claimed ranges for the instant disclosure AD/AG value (see claims 5 and 14; instant disclosure at P35-36 of the PGPUB) which establishes the purity of the materials, and the purity of the materials is the feature that dictates the D-C value as claimed, it is considered intrinsic to the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz that the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz with a D/G value within the ranges claimed, once subjected to subsequent processing in the form of graphitization treatment at 2500 °C, would be capable of achieving a D-C value overlapping or encompassing the D-C range claimed.
See also the alternative rejection made against the D-C range:
Additionally, in the instance that the MWCNTs are desired to have a low impurity content (and thus low or non-existent D-C value) for their end use within a given application, Hamilton, Jr. teaches techniques by which as-received MWCNT can have the amorphous carbon layer (the taught impurity at P34 of the instant disclosure) removed prior to the introduction of -COOH groups (abstract; entire disclosure; p. 1-2, 6-8). Hamilton, Jr. teaches that the amorphous carbon layer can jeopardize intrinsic optical, electrical, and mechanical properties of MWCNT and have undesirable biological activities and in addition, the surface amorphous layer causes interference with the functionalization of the sidewall of MWCNT such that it is necessary to remove said amorphous impurities and residual metals prior to functionalization (p. 2). It is noted that Hamilton, Jr. also teaches the ID/IG ratio and that it reflects the content of the amorphous carbon (p. 7-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the known technique of purifying the MWCNT of Hernandez-Ortiz prior to the introduction of -COOH groups given Hamilton, Jr. teaches such a technique is known in the art, and provides the advantages of avoiding the issues caused by the impurities, as well as promoting the -COOH functionalization thereof (entire disclosure relied upon).
The purified MWCNT of Hernandez-Ortiz as modified by Hamilton, Jr. would thus have the amorphous layer removed (p. 7) such that the D-C value would be zero nm (0.0 nm) (a value within the range claimed of 0.18 nm or less).
As noted in the Patent Trail and Appeal Board Decision mailed in this application on 4/16/2026 with respect to arguments against the B-A value claimed (see pages 3-4):
PNG
media_image7.png
142
597
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
287
602
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Board found that the Examiner provided undisputed fact findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that Hernandez-Ortiz’s CNT structure is the same as that claimed, wherein such “unchallenged findings shift the burden to Appellant/[Applicant] to provide evidence demonstrating that the recited properties would not have been inherent in the pior art structure.” Best, 562 F. 2d at 1255 (page 4 of the Patent Board Decision mailed 4/16/2026).
Likewise to the scenario with the B-A range, Applicant presents no evidence or arguments against the scientific reasoning previously presented to demonstrate that the Examiner’s fact-finding and technical reasoning is in error in regard to the D-C range presented.
Applicant argues: Additionally, Hernandez-Oritz does not teach that the carbon nanotube has an E-F of 0.50 or greater, where E is an AD/AG of the carbon nanotube measured by a Raman spectrum, and F is an AD/AG of the sample of the carbon nanotube measured by a Raman spectrum after the sample of the carbon nanotube undergoes the graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C. Specifically, E-F cannot be characterized as a mere Raman D/G ratio. Instead, it is the difference in AD/AG before and after graphitization at 2,500 °C and reflects a substantial change in the defect-related Raman response caused by high-temperature graphitization. The cited art does not disclose or suggest such a graphitization response parameter.
Accordingly, the cited art does not disclose or make obvious carbon nanotubes where the carbon nanotubes have, in addition to a B-A of 0.70 nm or greater, a D-C of 0.18 nm or less and a E- F of 0.50 or greater.
In response: Respectfully, this does not address the analysis made by the Examiner setting forth a scientific basis to believe the carbon nanotubes of Hernandez-Oritz intrinsically would have a E-F value in a range overlapping or encompassing that claimed if subjected to the graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C on the basis of the taught AD/AG value or E value of the carbon nanotube (“MW” or “Mw-f”) (see Fig. 1b) being in the range claimed (see claims 5 and 14). Thus, likewise to the scenario with the B-A range, Applicant presents no evidence or arguments against the scientific reasoning previously presented to demonstrate that the Examiner’s fact-finding and technical reasoning is in error in regard to the E-F range presented.
As set forth in the rejection of record:
It is the position of the Examiner that if the carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz, having the original or pre-graphitization AD/AG value in the range presented (claim 5: 0.9 or greater), was subsequently subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, then all the structure necessary to be capable of achieving an E-F range overlapping/encompassing the E-F range claimed would intrinsically be achieved in the [final] product (to which the independent claim is not drawn to).
It is noted that no additional structure is set forth in the claims or specification that is necessary to achieve a subsequent transformation of the carbon nanotube during the graphitization treatment into a final (not-claimed) product capable of achieving the E-F range presented. Accordingly, the Examiner finds no reason that the original carbon nanotube as claimed within claim 1 and met by Hernandez-Ortiz, when subjected to a graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, would not behave and transform in the same way such that is intrinsically capable of achieving an E-F range overlapping or encompassing the range presented.
Accordingly, the burden shifts to the patent applicant to demonstrate or explain, with objective evidence where needed, why the prior art carbon nanotube of Hernandez-Ortiz, once subjected to the graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, and having an original E (“AD/AG”) value in the range claimed, would not intrinsically be capable of meeting the E-F range. It is true that the cited art does explicitly teach “a graphitization response parameter,” instead, it is concluded that if one were to take the product that is claimed (e.g., the carbon nanotube having the E value), and subjected it to the graphitization treatment at 2,500 °C, the property claimed would intrinsically and naturally flow from the structure that is taught in the prior art to meet the “graphitization response parameter” that is presented in the claims given this is a property of the carbon nanotube.
Applicant comments: If the Examiner does not believe that the action of passing the application to issue, a telephone call is requested.
In response: The Examiner does not find that a telephone call prior to the mailing of this Office Action would expedite prosecution or result in expediting allowance of the application. Applicant is welcome to schedule an interview with the Examiner after receipt of this Office Action if the merits of such an interview are such that prosecution is moving forward.
Conclusion
12. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is repeated below:
Flygare et al., “Quantifying crystallinity in carbon nanotubes and its influence on mechanical behavior,” Materials Today Communications, 18 (2019) 39-45, available online 09 Nov. 2018 (copy previously provided) teaches the known effect that crystallinity (i.e., La as claimed) has “a profound influence on material properties,” (abstract) and teaches the importance of the ratio of the D-peak to the G-peak (ID/IG) and that it is inversely proportional to the in-plane crystallite size La (p. 39). In other words, it appears if the La range of claim 1 is met, then the AD/AG range (claim 5) would also be intrinsically met. Flygare teaches that La is dependent on the growth mechanism with CVD growth values of La being about 5 nm (P.40), wherein the lower La value/CVD grown tubes are much more compliant that the higher crystallinity counterparts achieved via arch-discharge growth means (P.40).
Flygare teaches a MWCNT with a La value of 5.5 + 1.6 nm (p. 43; Fig. 6b), and that La or crystallinity of CNTs is directly linked to mechanical behavior (ps. 43-44). Flygare also provides a helpful illustration of the crystallite size (La):
PNG
media_image9.png
624
1292
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Gong et al., “Simple quantification of surface carboxylic acids on chemically oxidized multi-walled carbon nanotubes,” Applied Surface Science, 266 (2013), 219-244, Available online 16 Dec. 2012 (copy previously provided) teaches MW-CNTs chemically oxidized using nitric acid and sulfuric-nitric acid mixtures (entire disclosure relied upon), wherein the concentration of carboxylic acids (-COOH) increases as oxidation proceeded as a function of treating time and concentration of H2SO4 and/or HNO- (p.222), wherein Gong teaches the surface functionalization of MWCNTs is necessary in order to be able to better disperse them within solutions given the extreme surface hydrophobicity of the MWCNTs and their consequent aggregation into bundles in polar liquids (p. 219). Gong teaches various atomic percentages achieved for the given treatments.
Kang et al. (WO 2017/171291) (published 05.10.2017) (using US 2019/00608788 as a copy and English language translation thereof) teaches a carbon nanotube with a crystal size (Lc) (corresponding to La(100) (P27) as claimed of 5.1 nm and a BET surface area of 197 m2/g (Comparative Example 2 – Table 1).
13. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 It is noted that by providing the D-C feature with each of D and C being defined by Lc(002), the claimed carbon nanotube is thus inherently a multi-walled carbon nanotube
Prosecution Insights