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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 (8-11 are withdrawn) are pending and presented for examination. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 11 December 2025 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Oh is WITHDRAWN as claim 7 was amended up into claim 1 and Oh was not used to reject such.
The rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hou is WITHDRAWN as claim 7 was amended up into claim 1 and Hou was not used to reject such.
The rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lashmore taken either alone or in combination with Oh is WITHDRAWN as claim 7 was amended up into claim 1 and Lashmore was not used to reject such.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bulmer in view of Oh is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Oh discloses a flow rate of 10-50 mL/min (Remarks at 6) which is correct and this is why Oh was never used to reject claim 7. The traversal continues in that “claim 1 now states that only the lower half of the reactor is filled with a dense gas”, however claim 1 is not explicit with this language at all. If Applicants meant to claim this explicitly then they should have, as it is not positively recited in the claim then this cannot be argued to distinguish over Oh (or any of the other references) at this time.
The traversal against Bulmer is that they both disclose a vertical reactor in which the gas is injected from the top of the reactor thereby filling the complete reactor and the other references (but Bulmer and Saeh) are drawn to vertical reactors. The orientation of the reactor in Bulmer is immaterial and it is unclear how rotating it would necessarily affect the concept of the flow rate being applicable across the applied references and again arguing that only the bottom half of the reactor with a dense gas is not required by the claim (only that the bottom be filled, this does not preclude more than just the bottom being filled).
The rejections of claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Oh in further view of Tapaszto; Lashmore with or without Oh in view of Tapaszto; and Saeh in view of Tapaszto were not particularly traversed on the merits of Tapaszto. However, these are withdrawn as Tapaszto discloses a rate of 8.33 L/min which is higher than the 1-5 L/min claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulmer in view of Oh.
Regarding claim 1, 3, 5 and 6, Bulmer discloses a method for producing elongated non-entangled carbon nanotube filaments (Bumler at 2 R col discloses an aligned final product from the process) comprising:
Introducing a fluid mixture comprising a metal catalyst precursor (ferrocene), a conditioner (thiophene), and a carbon source (benzyl alcohol, Bulmer at “Fig. 1”) into a portion of a reactor having been at least partially filled with a pre-heated dense gas (“2.1.2 Reactor 2”);
Propelling the mixture through the vertically oriented reactor (Id.);
Initiating decomposition of the metal catalyst precursor to produce metal catalyst particles and the carbon source transforms into carbon atoms which then deposit on the metal catalyst particles and is collected (Id. via heating to 1280-1300 C). The dense gas is can comprise argon (Bulmer at 4 L col and this can be present at 35% so this also meets claim 3 and this also substantially fills the bottom of the reactor with dense gas). The dense gas can also be the carrier gas which is pre-heated (Id.).
Bulmer discloses that the liquid mixture is added at 130 microliters/min into a carrier gas of 0.75-6.5 L/min (Bulmer at “Reactor 2”, though Bulmer also discloses 1.02L/min specifically) which overlaps that range instantly claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05) and given that the mixture is a fluid it is considered to be all fluid (liquid+gas) to cover this limitation’s broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, Bulmer discloses that the reactor goes downward, not upward via the injection and thusly the collection is done at the bottom not the top.
Oh in a method of producing elongated CNTs discloses placing the connection unit on top and injection upward (Oh at [0055]) and usage of inert gas as a carrier gas (Oh at [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Bulmer in view of the orientation of Oh. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being increasing catalyst residence time in the highest heated zone (Id.).
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Oh in view of “Carbon nanotube reactor: Ferrocene decomposition, iron particle growth, nanotube aggregation and scale-up” to Conroy et al. (hereinafter, “Conroy at __”).
As to claim 1, Oh discloses a method for producing elongated non-entangled CNT filaments (Oh
at “Fig. 4” to “Fig. 7” show the CNTs are aligned and thusly “non-entangled”) comprising:
Introducing a fluid mixture into a lower portion of a vertically oriented reactor at least
partially filled with a pre-heated dense gas (The reactor having inert gas already at temperature of 1273 K, Oh at [0070]), wherein the fluid mixture comprises a metal catalyst, conditioner, and a carbon source. the inert gas can be argon (Oh at [0096]) and as it diffuses through the reactor the filling of the bottom limitation is considered to be met;
(ii) propelling the fluid mixture upwardly through the vertically oriented reactor (Oh at
[0058]);
(iii) Initiating decomposition of the metal catalyst precursor into metal catalyst particles and
the carbon source into carbon atoms (Oh at [0093]); and
(iv) Allowing the carbon atoms to de deposited onto the metal catalyst partcles to form
elongated non-entangled CNT filaments (Oh at [0105]); and
(v) Discharging the elongated non-entnagled CNT filaments from an upper portion of the
reactor (Oh at “Fig. 2” numeral 142).
However, Oh does not expressly state a flow rate of 1-5 L/min.
Conroy in a method of making CNTs via a vertical tubular reactor discloses increasing the flow rate to 2.5 L/min results in a smaller diameter nanotube (Conroy at “Table 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Oh in view of the flow rate of Conroy. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being smaller diameters (Id.).
As to claim 3, ferrocene is added at 1.3% in Conroy so 98.7 wt% of the bottom portion is 1 minus 186.04g/mol*0.013 divided by 98.7*2.016+186.04*.013 which is 2.42+198.98=~98.82%.
With respect to claim 5, ferrocene is utilized ([0072]).
Turning to claim 6, thiophene is utilized ([0105]).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759