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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/2025, has been entered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US20180282581, herein Moon), in the view of Kim (US20140183417, herein Kim).
Regarding claims 1-3, Moon teaches ceramic based slurry composition [0004] comprising: “water-based solvent or an organic solvent” [0028] wherein, the solvent is “the sulfonic acid group additive may include, e.g., policresulen and/or a salt thereof” [0061], structure see below [Scifinder] as evidenced by CAS Registry Number: 101418-00-2, wherein R1 is first hydrophilic substituent, R2 is second hydrophilic substituent, R3 is alkyl group having carbons of 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
616
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moon teaches “ceramic polishing particles may be included in the slurry composition for chemical mechanical polishing” [0029], Moon is silent on carbon nanotube and the concentrations of carbon nanotube and dispersant. However, Kim teaches single-walled carbon nanotubes, double-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes [0026], preparing the carbon nanotube dispersion via dispersing carbon nanotubes (A) by mixing the carbon nanotubes (A) with polyarylene ether (B) [0050], indicates the polyarylene ether is dispersant; Kim further teaches the carbon nanotube dispersion may include the total solute (the carbon nanotubes (A) and the polyarylene ether (B)) in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 15 wt % [0045], Kim further teaches the carbon nanotube dispersion may include the polyarylene ether in an amount of about 0.5 wt % to about 20 wt % based on the total amount of solute (the carbon nanotubes (A) and the polyarylene ether (B)) [0041], which indicate the dispersant concentration range is 0.005% to 3 %, hence, overlaps the claimed range; the carbon nanotube dispersion may include the carbon nanotubes (A) in an amount of about 80 wt % to about 99.5 wt % based on the total amount of solute (the carbon nanotubes (A) and the polyarylene ether (B)) [0034], which indicate the carbon nanotubes concentration range is 0.8% to 14.93%, which overlaps the claimed range. Moon and Kim are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of ceramic based dispersion formation via dispersant. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moon to add the teachings of single-walled carbon nanotubes, double-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes [0026], preparing the carbon nanotube dispersion via dispersing carbon nanotubes (A) by mixing the carbon nanotubes (A) with polyarylene ether (B) [0050], the carbon nanotube dispersion may include the total solute (the carbon nanotubes (A) and the polyarylene ether (B)) in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 15 wt % [0045], the carbon nanotube dispersion may include the polyarylene ether in an amount of about 0.5 wt % to about 20 wt % based on the total amount of solute (the carbon nanotubes (A) and the polyarylene ether (B)) [0041]; the carbon nanotube dispersion may include the carbon nanotubes (A) in an amount of about 80 wt % to about 99.5 wt % based on the total amount of solute (the carbon nanotubes (A) and the polyarylene ether (B)) [0034], into the dispersion formation. Doing so would further achieve the exhibiting excellent dispersibility without phase separation [0057] as taught by Kim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US20180282581, herein Moon), in the view of Kim (US20140183417, herein Kim) and
Jong (KR101747295, herein Jong, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding claim 7, Moon and Kim collectively teach the instant application specification as set forth above, Moon does not explicitly teach the manufacturing method of a nanotube film. However, Jong teaches “coating the above carbon nanotube dispersion on a substrate” [0043]; “filtration and dried under vacuum” [0053]. The above steps collectively match the manufacturing method of a nanotube film. Moon and Jong are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of ceramic materials based dispersion formation. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moon to add the teachings of Jong and provide wherein “coating the above carbon nanotube dispersion on a substrate” [0043]; “filtration and dried under vacuum” [0053], as taught by Jong into the product formation. Doing so would further achieve the optimization of the processing owing to aqueous solution can ease the mixing process, and further lead to the product toward “carbon nanotubes are easily dispersed in water, and the carbon nanotubes are individually well dispersed, and their length and diameter are also more elongated and have a greater effect than conventionally dispersed carbon nanotubes. In addition, it has excellent effects in terms of distributed stability.” [0020] as taught by Jong.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moon (US20180282581, herein Moon) and Kim (US20140183417, herein Kim).
In this case, the new added reference_ Kim and Moon collectively teach the nanotube dispersion composition and the ranges, as set forth in the new rejection above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767