DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-7 was/were rejected in Office Action mailed on 01/13/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim(s) 1, on 04/02/2026
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 are pending, and claim(s) 9-10 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al., KR20210036725A, published Aril 2021, (Park).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Park et al., KR20210036725A (Park). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-3, Park discloses a catalyst for producing carbon nanotubes (Park, page 1, Abstract); the support included in the catalyst for producing carbon nanotubes provided by the includes a plurality of plate-shaped particulate metal supports (plate-shaped particulate metal supports reads upon a carrier), and the number average particle size of the plate-shaped particulate metal supports is 10 μm or less (Park, page 3, 4th paragraph from bottom).
Park further discloses the plate-shaped particulate metal support is preferably plate-shaped boehmite (Park, page 4, 2nd paragraph from bottom) (i.e., essentially AlO(OH)), reading upon wherein the carrier is an aluminum-based carrier containing 40 wt% or more of AlO(OH).
Park further discloses boehmite particles (i.e., plate-shaped particulate metal supports which reads upon a carrier) having a number average particle size of 4 μm (Park, page 6, Example 1);
the catalyst for producing carbon nanotubes includes a main catalyst component and a cocatalyst component as catalyst components (wherein the catalyst components read upon an active ingredient) (Park, page 4, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claims 4-7, as applied to claim 1, Park further discloses the above-described main catalyst component may be at least one selected from nickel, cobalt, and iron, and cobalt is particularly preferred (Park, page 4, 2nd paragraph);
the above-described cocatalyst component may be at least one selected from molybdenum and vanadium, and vanadium is particularly preferred (Park, page 4, 3rd paragraph);
according to one embodiment of the present invention, the catalyst component of the catalyst for producing carbon nanotubes of the present invention may have the following composition:
(Ni, Co, Fe)x(Mo, V)y
in the above, x is the molar ratio of the main catalyst component, y is the molar ratio of the cocatalyst component,
1≤x≤10 and 0<y≤5 (Park, page 4, 4th paragraph), which corresponds to a molar ratio of the main catalyst component to the cocatalyst component of: 10:0 to 10:50.
Park further discloses in Example 1, when preparing the catalyst, 9.45 g of NH4VO3 and 235.5 g of Co(NO3)2·6H2O are dissolved and added to 300 g of boehmite (Park, page 6, Example 1).
Given molar weight of NH4VO3 (117 g/mol), Co(NO3)2·6H2O (292 g/mol), V2O5 (182 g/mol), V (51 g/mol), CoO (75 g/mol) and Co (59 g/mol), it can be derived that the produced catalyst comprises 14 wt% (i.e., (235.5*59/292+9.45*51/117)/(300+235.5*75/292+9.45*182/2/117)=14 wt%) of Co and V as active ingredient,
and the molar ratio of Co to V is: 10:1 (i.e., 235.5/292:9.45/117=10:1).
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claim 1, which recites, “wherein the carrier is an aluminum-based carrier containing 40 wt% or more of AlO(OH)”. It is noted that the nonstatutory double patenting over co-pending application No. 18573310,18841291,18846531 and 18573364 are withdrawn from the record.
In response to the amended claim 1, which recites, “wherein the carrier is an aluminum-based carrier containing 40 wt% or more of AlO(OH)”, it is noted that Kang would not anticipate/meet the present claims. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 rejections over Kang are withdrawn from the record. However, the amended claims remain rejected over Park as set forth above.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 20210036725, hereafter "Park") as set forth on pages 9-12 of the Official Action.
As evident from the above, amended claim one requires, inter alia, "wherein the carrier is an aluminum-based carrier containing 40 wt% or more of AlO(OH)." The grounds for rejection cite Park for disclosing "a catalyst for producing carbon nanotubes (Park, page 1, Abstract); the support included in the catalyst for producing carbon nanotubes provided by the includes a plurality of plate-shaped particulate metal supports (plate-shaped particulate metal supports reads upon a carrier), and the number average particle size of the plate-shaped particulate metal supports is 10 pm or less." However, Park does not disclose or teach an aluminum-based carrier containing 40 wt% or more of AlO(OH). Park appears to disclose "the plate-shaped particulate metal support may be one or more metal oxides selected from the group consisting of magnesium, calcium, aluminum, and silicon, and preferably may be aluminum oxide." Park, [0036]. Park's support is described as aluminum oxide (Al2O3), not an aluminum- based carrier containing 40 wt% or more of AlO(OH) (aluminum oxyhydroxide/boehmite). As explained in the present specification: "When the temperature is lower than the above-described temperature, aluminum hydroxide is not converted to AlO(OH), and when the temperature is higher than the above-described temperature, aluminum hydroxide is converted, so that Al2O3 may be prepared." Specification, [0050]. Thus, AlO(OH) and Al2O3 are distinct materials formed under different processing conditions.
The proposed amendment distinguishes claim 1 from Park because Park's plate-shaped particulate metal support is aluminum oxide (Al2O3), whereas claim 1 as amended requires "an aluminum-based carrier containing 40 wt% or more of AlO(OH)." AlO(OH) (boehmite/aluminum oxyhydroxide) is chemically and structurally distinct from Al2O3 (alumina). Park does not disclose or suggest using a carrier containing 40 wt% or more of AlO(OH).”
Remarks, p. 5-6
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Park further discloses the plate-shaped particulate metal support is preferably plate-shaped boehmite (Park, page 4, 2nd paragraph from bottom) (i.e., essentially AlO(OH)), reading upon wherein the carrier is an aluminum-based carrier containing 40 wt% or more of AlO(OH), as set forth above on page 3. Therefore, Park meets the present claims, absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
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 KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights