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 and 2 are pending and presented for examination. The priority claim has still not been corrected and it is noted that the application applicants are attempting to claim priority to does not disclose the ASU is in a nanofiber state.
Specification
The Specification is objected to as it fails to recite production of “Carbon nanotubes” but the originally filed claims were drawn to a method of producing CNTs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 13 August 2025 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The objection to claim 2 is WITHDRAWN as the claim is no longer multiple sentences.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is MAINTAINED. There is still disparate embodiments disclosed (CxHy and CxHyF is recited as the ASU but as is also HwTxLyMz and HwTxLy so it is unclear if both are required to be the ASU or just one).
Applicants made many requests for evidentiary reference for supporting the Examiner’s taking of official notice. They are attached to this Office Action and cited on the attached PTO-892. As the documents have been provided and do not modify the rejections made, the Office Action may still be made final (see MPEP 2144.03(C)).
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Du is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment as Du does not disclose producing a carbon nanotube via contacting a non-carbon nanocomposite comprising a network of no-carbon nanostructures as claimed for claim 1 and that the MgO is not a nanofiber for claim 2 but instead a coating which is produced after the carbon nanofiber is produced.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Li is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring a nanocomposite be produced via processing of the ASU into a nanofiber instad the ASU is coated onto the nanofiber.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)() over Wang is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment as Wang does not produce a CNT.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Sharma is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment as Sharma does not produce the carbon nanotubes from the sulfonic acid doped polyaniline but instead produces the CNTs from methane.
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Qiu is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment as Qiu does not produce CNTs for claim 1.
However, for claim 2 the needles (which meet the BRI for nanofiber) are produced and then rinsed with water (Qiu at “2.1 Sample Preparation”) before being composited with the polymer so the claim is still met.
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Zhang is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment as Zhou does not produce CNTs for claim 1. As for claim 2 as the nanotubes are grown in the alumina it is not “contacted with . . .” as required by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 2 is rejected 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.
It is unclear if the ASU is both a carbon nanostructure and a non-carbon nanostructure. The claim recites that the second ASU is also a carbon nanostructure but these materials do not contain carbon and it appears it should also be then a “non-carbon nanostructure”. While “and” is present, the ambiguity from both referring to carbon nanostructures leads to confusion. Amendment to the claim to be the following would best remove ambiguity (and this is how the claim will be construed):
A method for making a nanocomposite comprising:
Producing a nanofiber by processing a nanocomposite by one or more processes selected from the group consisting of dissolving, spinning, rinsing, drying, heating, sizing, or a combination thereof;
Contacting the nanofiber with one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a metal, a ceramic, a non-metal, a polymer, a nanomaterial, a metamaterial, a composite, a zeolite, a gel, a cementitious material, a biomolecule, a metallic composition, a non-metallic composition, or a combination thereof,
Wherein the nanocomposition comprises a network having a lattice structure formed by an (ASU)n where ASU is an asymmetric unit of carbon nanostructures or non-carbon nanostructures and the carbon nanostructure is either CxHy or CxHyF and the non-carbon nanostructure is HaTbLcMd, HaTbLc and the carbon nanostructure has a crystal structure selected from the group consisting of a hexagonal, an orthorhombic, a monoclinic, or a triclinic system, n>=1, x is 6 or 7, 3<=y<=9, F is a functional group, T is an alkaline metal or an alkaline earth metal, L is a chalcogen, M is hydrogen, a>=0, b>=1, C+.1, and d>=0.
If Applicants are claiming that the ASU must be a carbon and non-carbon nanostructure, then they should amend the claim to recite that requirement such as “. . . wherein the ASU comprises a carbon nanostructure of either CxHy or CxHyF and a non-carbon nanostructure of either TaWbLc or TaWbLcHy . . .”.
Claim 2 is also rejected as y cannot be more than 9 and less than 3, it should read 3<=y<=9 (this is corrected in the proposed claim listed above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu.
Regarding claim 2, Qiu discloses a method of making a nanocomposite of Mg(OH)2 nanofibers in PET (Qiu at “2.1 Sample Preparation”) comprising:
Producing a nanofiber of Mg(OH)2 (which is an ASU meeting a=1, b=2, c=2, T=Mg, L=O, H=H) by rinsing produced Mg(OH)2 with water (Id.);
Contacting the nanofiber with a polymer (PET) to form the composite (Id.).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Very High-Quality Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Grown Using a Structured and Tunable Porous Fe/MgO Catalyst” to Nie et al. (hereinafter, “Nie at __”).
Regarding claim 1, Nie discloses a method for the synthesis of carbon nanotube (Nie at “Abstract”) comprising:
Providing a non-carbon nanocomposition which has a lattice system of cubic (MgO, Id.) and contacting the non-carbon composition with a metallic composition (Fe) and a non-metallic composition (methane; Nie at 20179 L col) to grow the CNTs.
Concerning claim 2, Nie discloses a method of making a nanocomposite comprising:
Producing a nanofiber of MgO by co-precipitation (which utilizes heating and rinsing) which meets T=Mg, L=O, a=b=1 and has a cubic structure which is then impregnated with iron solution to form a nanocomposite of Fe/MgO (Nie at 20179 L col).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8709374 to Cooper et al. (hereinafter, “Cooper at __”).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper discloses a method of producing CNTs (Cooper at “Abstract”) comprising:
Providing a non-carbon nanocomposition having a network of non-carbon nanostructures having a cubic system (Ni) which is then contacted with a no-metallic composition of MgO and then a carbon bearing precursor (Cooper at “Claim 18” & 3:18).
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 2 are finally rejected.
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 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